17 ms·

How to boss without being bossy

422 points by putzdown 3y ago

mvdl 3y ago
"Leaders command people". No, real leaders don't. Those with a military background that have been in situations where shit was all over the fan will agree.
tjpnz 3y ago
Would you kindly take out the trash?
tennisflyi 3y ago
I like the chart and examples. Thanks! I'm going to read over theme here in a bit.
- Tempest1981 3y ago
  I need you to do it now.
gardenhedge 3y ago
I like this approach - with the extra clarity added "The trash needs to be taken out because <x>. Can you look after that <within timeframe>?" Clarity: 5/5 Harshness: 1/5
- axlee 3y ago
  "Why should I be the one to take out the trash?"
  - rizky05 3y ago
    [dead]
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    Let's assume the context is a boss asking the employee to do something that is part of the job. At that point, it's fine to discuss if the workload can be shared among the team, if appropriate.
- rightbyte 3y ago
  "Can you clear out three points of trash mountain til next Friday? Five points? No, it is three." These analogies fail in that the scope of taking out the trash is way too clear.
  - gardenhedge 3y ago
    You're using points here as an estimate of the workload. The points in my comment are following the same point system as in the article.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  I am intrigued by the downvoters. Can you explain the downvotes please? In my mind it works perfectly at all levels. It's clear and direct and it invites feedback. "As part of our customer satisfaction strategy, we need an online portal. Mary, can you take ownership of this stream?" "We're due to deliver the pie chart feature this week and there's still multiple code reviews outstanding. Bob, Dylan and Charlie, can you work together and get this done by the end of the week?" "There's a bug affecting two of our top customers. To avoid losing them as customers, we will need to get it investigated and fixed as a top priority. Jane, can you look into this today and give me an update by the end of the day?"
cmclaughlin 3y ago
Here's how my wife does it... "Do you want to take out the trash?" My engineer mind interprets it literally every time :) Usually I don't mind taking out the trash... but occasionally I don't really want to. I have to always translate this to "She wants me to take out the trash".
- docandrew 3y ago
  There’s a funny comedy bit about the passive-aggressive phrasing “we need to <take out the trash, clean up the yard, etc>”. “Is that a _he_ need, or a _she_ need?” Who’s we in this scenario?
- User23 3y ago
  “No.”
  - quickthrower2 3y ago
    Is the answer from those not yet brainwashed. Aka kids!
- amatecha 3y ago
  Yeah, sometimes I respond to those like "well, no, I don't want to, but I will if you'd like". haha :)
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Or. “It’s OK i’ll take out the trash”
  - yCombLinks 3y ago
    That makes me so mad! Just put down a checklist and I'll gladly do it! Not sure why emotional manipulation needs to happen!
    - bibabaloo 3y ago
      The subtext here is probably that the asking person doesn't _want_ to be commanding, much less making checklists. :)
ska 3y ago
This seems a bit superficial, because it concentrates only how you communicate an instruction to people. I suspect, especially in high competence and nominally high trust environments like (much of) tech, mostly when people consider a superior "bossy" it's not because of the way they communicate (though that could contribute) but because they do not trust the communication or the motivations behind it, or question why they (the boss) are getting involved at all. To put it another way, if there is a high degree of trust anyway you are likely forgiven a harsher communication style, but if the the trust isn't there no amount of wordsmithing that will improve it. That being said, poor communication styles will ruffle feathers and cause problems, and if you are leading people you should learn to do this better. I just don't think that's at the heart of what being considered "bossy" is, so working on it won't likely fix that.
- roenxi 3y ago
  I'd put that the author hasn't managed people in a multicultural team before. It quickly becomes apparent that there is a cultural component to communication style that changes language expectations by a lot. And at the end of the day word choice doesn't matter much. There is a deeper aspect to watch which is response over time - "tracking what does the boss say to me?" as it transforms into "What are the consequences later on?". A big part of being "bossy" IMO is creating consequences for getting trivial instructions wrong.
- kevinmchugh 3y ago
  Similarly (and at risk of focusing too much on the example), in a high competency and high trust environment, identifying a task as quotidian as taking out the trash ought to be pretty rare. If you have a bunch of highly capable professionals, they shouldn't need commanding and they should be pretty capable of keeping their workspace functional.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  Not just superficial but even manipulative.
IsaacL 3y ago
This is a terrible article that rambles on for far too long without offering an actually polite way to tell/request someone to do something. These are the best approaches: 1. "Please take out the trash." 2. "The trash needs to be taken out. Can you do it?" 3. (If there are several people around). "The trash needs to be taken out. Who can do it?" Extra consideration: I'm assuming this refers to a context where there's a prior agreement in place that A can tell B what to do (e.g. a business, where B signs a contract stating that he has sold X hours/day to the organisation). It usually should be unnecessary to bark out orders or to beat around the bush -- both are insulting: if B is a functioning adult they accept that they work for an organisation and so need to complete certain tasks. However, direct instructions are rarely necessary for knowledge workers or highly-skilled professionals. Unless things have broken down horribly, they're aware that the success of the business they work for will contribute to their own career success. E.g., instead of "you will write unit tests today" or "would you mind terribly writing unit tests today?", A would do best saying something like "we're introducing too many regressions when we change things, we need a better testing strategy -- let's discuss our approach to unit testing" and then let the team weigh in with their own ideas so they have ownership over whatever is decided.
- brailsafe 3y ago
  > "they're aware that the success of the business they work for will contribute to their own career success." If this was commonly true, then it wouldn't also be commonly true to feel best served by switching companies every 2 years. Other than simply continuing to be employed, but even that's tenuous and often volatile. > "Unless things have broken down horribly" It's a lucky individual who's never experienced this in their career.
- woooooo 3y ago
  "Best" has to be subjective here? My personal favorite, combo of 2 listed, would he "I need X to happen"
  - timeagain 3y ago
    Subjective it must be, if my boss talked like that it would give me flashbacks to entitled customers I had working in food service. Edit: to expand, the “I need” language has an implicit imperative. Since it is implicit, the listener/employee needs to internalize the command, and internalize the idea that the bosses “needs” are the employees “wants”. Maybe I’m psychologizing too much, but I haven’t ever met someone who talked like that who I could get along with. A baby cries when it needs something, mommy responds. As adults we should handle our own needs by turning them into actions to fulfill them ourselves or requests to have others fulfill them.
xepriot 3y ago
Neuroticising over how to word your commands (polite requests) is slave mindset, and such a person who does this is not a 'leader'. What makes a leader is not how you word things. But almost nobody walking around in corporate america has an inspiringly authoritative personality, and you can't make yourself into one very easily, so retarded articles like this are the best they can do. If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this', the follower actually wants to do it and does not care about how carefully you handle their feelings.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  >If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this', the follower actually wants to do it and does not care about how carefully you handle their feelings. Nope, communicating with humans is the same art whether you think you are a leader or not. Some cultures have a strong sense of hierarchy, which in their business interactions is expressed in the petty, demeaning game of "act like a sycophant insect to those above you and treat those below you as pawns to be commanded", which has the same effect as what you're describing, but civilized people tend to reject that. Edit: Note that this is not a defense of the article, which starts off incorrect at sentence one. It's easy to confuse the concept of a command hierarchy, like a military, and a cooperation hierarchy, which is the way a healthy business operates (though this is perhaps the minority of businesses, because a command hierarchy is more effective if your employees mostly don't give a shit or are miserable or incompetent, any of which problems may or may not be their fault).
  - financltravsty 3y ago
    Not all humans are equal. Some still retain the spirit of wonder and awe -- dare I say zest -- that allows them to find inspiration. Whether that is through internal or external means, they still can be impelled to act by the right stimulus. To be civilized is to bend to genteel sensibilities; and nothing inspiring ever comes from that. Logically sound, rational, and convincing sure; but never inspiring.
  - xepriot 3y ago
    you demonstrate the slave mindset. you cannot imagine and so reject the possibility of an individual with the charismatic power to make those below him not feel like insects yet at the same time not neuroticise or even consciously attend at at all to how he comports himself. These individuals are not rare, either - but you cannot see them properly, likely because of the same resentment which causes you to describe followers, again, as 'insects'. This understanding is not available to your 'concepts' or however you want to terminologize your gay taxonomy of hierarchies. either you get it - you get that people instinctively want to have someone above them to respect, and even admire (love), while they obey - or you don't.
somewhereoutth 3y ago
Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if they are not actually talking to me myself. But more seriously: Ensure people know what and why something is important, ideally by arriving at that conclusion jointly and as part of an overarching plan that everyone can feel involved in - thus requests shouldn't be a surprise, they aren't coming from you so much as from the plan (nebulous though it may be). Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information. Show consideration for other pressures that somebody might be under. Listen when they say no. Close the loop so that good results get back to the person who did the thing. Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with plane crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame. Be ready to help out others as they have helped out you.
- jmye 3y ago
  I think the article’s advice to think about and notice phrasing is good: we should all be aware of the words we use, and how they sound. But I think your suggestions mirror my experience in actually getting the person to do the thing. The other benefit is that the same steps, more or less, work well when managing up as well as down.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Absolutely. Words matter. However, one thing I have found is that when you go around telling people to do things, they frequently tend to do them. Sometimes, that's fine. After all, I would assume no rational human is going to "command" someone to do a thing if they don't think they want that thing done. Personally, I've found that pointing people in a general direction ends up yielding far superior results. Empower your team, and they'll surprise you, usually in a good way.
    - romafirst3 3y ago
      It depends on the team and the stakes. Sometimes your team will surprise you but often they’ll horribly disappoint you. If the stakes are low, sure do whatever, but if shit matters …
CPLX 3y ago
What about “your assignment is” or “you are responsible for” or similar? Surprised not to see them there. The problem with all these is they’re personal. Like it’s what I want you to do. But it’s business. The actual raw communication seems like it should be more like an explanation of how your current role relates to this specific task (ie you have to do it) as well as how other people will be involved, if any.
tonymet 3y ago
“I need you to …” is too low level. It’s better to set the objective, how success will be measured, and who will care about it (usually a customer or partner), what the stakes are , and when we need to wrap up. If you find yourself as a manager telling people what to do and how to do it, take a step back.
- inopinatus 3y ago
  "Your goal today is maintaining capacity and throughput in our waste disposal pipeline. How you get that done is up to you." Engineer: invents self-dumping garbage bags
User23 3y ago
This entire premise is silly. What’s next, how to parent without being parenty? How to direct without being directory? How to conduct without being conducty? If you’re in authority over people pretending that you’re not is just insulting. Just be polite and give commands as are appropriate for your position.
therealcamino 3y ago
The author is way too enamored of "I need" or "The trash needs" constructions that are passive-aggressive. I would go nuts if my manager talked to me that way. This is all very subjective, but at a minimum be direct, and polite. There's a lot of confusion here between directness and harshness, and it's missing perspective on lots of elements of human communication.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Agreed. I'm surprised the author didn't explore variations on "we need to..." or "the {org|team|division|company} needs to..." Those turns of phrases are more inspiring than they are commanding.
  - hugh-avherald 3y ago
    "One of our valued younger customers had blocked up the toilets with Monster Munch. Now I need that toilet back in play. Let's approach that as a team, shall we? How can we make that happen?"
    - goldenkey 3y ago
      I call a rapid-fire SCRUM meeting, topic: Monster Munch Lunch
  - refurb 3y ago
    Pretty much this. The challenges ahead are for the team to solve. It should be a team discussion on how to plan and divide the work up. There is always boring work involved, but posing it to the team and being straightforward “hey this isn’t the most exciting thing, but we need to get it done” usually gets a volunteer. The more empowered the team feels when work is planned out, the less pushback you tend to get.
dontupvoteme 3y ago
>Clarity axis That is debatable and part of a fundamental cultural divide between, at a minimum - the USA, the UK and Continental Europe.
latchkey 3y ago
I feel like nobody is addressing the fact that I already took out the trash before you even asked. Now that is how to win points with the SO.
- number6 3y ago
  That's a hidden contract; don't get resentful if it is not appreciated the way you expect
- imhoguy 3y ago
  But that was yesterday, the bin is full again :)
blotato 3y ago
The more trust and respect there is among a group of people, the more direct they can be with each other, without coming off as harsh. There is a lot of implicit communication in a relationship with deep trust and respect at its core. You can say less, very directly, and usually get what you want, without offending anyone.
- 1letterunixname 3y ago
  Yes. The trick is good rapport, a sense of humor, and respect rather than familiarity leading to contempt. One anti-pattern I've seen is the "big fish in tiny bowl" syndrome where a certain person evolves over the years into an overpaid, arrogant asshole.
  - blotato 3y ago
    Also the problem with formulaic wording, as prescribed in the blog, is that it promotes overthinking about the wrong thing. You overthink the particular phrasing and intonation, rather than thinking about how to improve your relationship with others which would yield substantially more positive results. And when you hesitate from overthinking, people can sense that you're not being authentic or genuine.
shusaku 3y ago
I’m learning how to delegate these days, and it’s teaching me that I’m a bad communicator. I appreciate the clarity discussion, but in the real world it’s even harder. At least everyone knows what taking out the trash involves! But when it involves delegating a complex task, concerns about being bossy means you might fail to explain the precise requirements of the task you’re delegating.
maliker 3y ago
The trick is to remember that your job as the boss is to help your employees do their best work. Once that’s established, the language comes naturally. That said, “can you do X?” usually always works. The answer is almost always yes. If it’s no, there’s probably a good reason why that lets you rethink the request.
inopinatus 3y ago
This is some low performance team they must be managing. Interrupt-driven task allocation is inherently dysfunctional. In a high performance team, it's more like managing a band. The manager is not the talent. You are Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. You enable the talent. You hire smart people, give them goals and the resources they need, then get the fuck out of their way. They don't take out the trash. You do it. Or hire a janitor, since it seems you value the task; that's someone who didn't need asking, because GC is already in their JD.
rswail 3y ago
I've been a team leader and other "management" positions and most of the time, my job is to shield the team from external issues to allow them to do our needed work. It's also part of my job to show, by example, dedication to our common goals, even if that means that I'm there during overnight deployments or other uncomfortable / less-than-ideal activities. So I see myself as an equal that has a different role to the others in the team. There are occasions when there's something that breaks through that shield and then when I do ask either an individual or the team, they understand that I'm asking them to do something that I couldn't avoid or do myself.
solatic 3y ago
If you're looking for the right turn of phrase, you already lost. As a leader, you need to establish a rapport (with someone who is anyway initially inclined to desire rapport with you, because you're their boss and have outsize influence over future compensation) and negotiate over high-level context: IC availability and understanding what problems need solving. If everyone understands the problem and there's mutual trust, the details take care of themselves. Of course, "establish mutual trust" is a whole megillah unto itself. But if it exists, "take out the trash" is not bossy. If it doesn't exist, "could we take out the trash?" is incredibly rude.
- neontomo 3y ago
  I agree with you. Looking for the right word is missing the point and to me feels like overanalysing instead of understanding. I've only worked in one manager position but I noticed that different people liked different styles - some want to understand why we're doing something and figure out the best way to do it themselves, as it gives them agency and confidence in their abilities - others felt overwhelmed and wanted a more direct approach (do this, in this specific way, in this amount of time) and didn't care what the reason was. If your staff knows your character and that you will stand up for them and back their needs in the work place, the phrasing is secondary. The most important thing for me is to see the individual before directing them, and that takes time, empathy but also for them to see that I'm worthy of listening to (the criteria differ here).
- strken 3y ago
  "We need the trash taken out. Bob, are you going to be in the office Friday and can you do it?" is arguably better. I can't think of a situation in software development where you need someone to just go do something with zero discussion because seconds matter, other than maybe on-call.
- PunchTornado 3y ago
  I disagree. No matter how much trust there is I accept nobody to tell me "I need you to do ..." or some other direct variant. Fortunately I encountered few bad bosses like this.
kstenerud 3y ago
This is one way to command, but it isn't the best way, because the "best" way depends on the people you command. Some prefer hands-on, others prefer hands-off. Some like very strong decisiveness ("You do this") while others prefer a more consensus-style approach ("let's get opinions on this"). At the end of the day, it comes down to "know your audience". You'll have your own preferred way of leadership, and the people under you will have theirs. Your job is to find a synergy whereby your leadership actions inspire the majority rather than repels them. There will always be some who don't like your style, but you can't make everyone happy. And there will always be other leaders with opinions on leadership, but they're usually talking about their people, not yours. All that matters is: Are you effective in moving your organization, and are the majority whom you lead inspired?
- opportune 3y ago
  Agree with this. It also goes beyond preference to the level of guidance and autonomy the person needs to be effective (even if they want a lot of autonomy, it might be better to not give them it). Also the nature of the work itself - if must-haves totally book your team you really can’t give them much flexibility or autonomy outside those must-haves.
happytiger 3y ago
Good tech leaders generally don’t command: they inspire. And when you’re at the point where you’re trying to figure out the “right way to say things” you’ve already, utterly, failed. Good tech leaders influence, guide, and grow people. They are honest and authentic. The management style I have seen work the best is when people act in a real, genuine and sincere ways that are true to who they are as individuals and avoid manipulative behavior. They can still be hard chargers. They can still be abrasive. But they generally have a great degree of self-honesty and consideration to others to go along with their ambition. Spending oceans of time trying to figure out the right turn of phrase is a terrible idea. It’s focusing more on how things look rather than putting the focus on how things are and how things should be. Obviously there are oceans of management styles. But I can say that the smooth talking, super considered people who are focused on how exactly to say things rather than bigger picture leadership ideals are typically to worst, most manipulative people I have ever worked with.
- opportune 3y ago
  I don’t think this is necessarily true. Delegation is the name of the game in any large organization - managers exist to sift down tasks to a doer. You can’t delegate many kinds of tasks by inspiring people. You can generally only inspire people into things they want to do and find interesting anyway but the unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of boring/annoying/not fun stuff that needs to be done and it can’t all be done by the CEO alone.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    Managers are leaders are vastly different animals that are often incorrectly conflated.
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      Correct. Managers handle process and paperwork. Leaders direct, influence, inspire, and occasionally even cajole or prod. It's the difference between a bureaucrat and a bard. The best managers are both, but you definitely want to make sure you're not sending a paper pusher to do a playwright's job.
j7ake 3y ago
This article is not meaningful without more context. What the boss should say to employees needs to be at a high enough level (eg overarching goals) so that a capable employee can create their own plan to achieve it, but not so high level that the employee cannot see the steps needed to go forward. Ideally this high level goal should push the employee just beyond its capabilities, but the boss knows who to connect with in case they need help. In practice that matters much more than whether you say please or need or can or want.
rocqua 3y ago
I find 'take out the trash' so much less hsrsher than 'you will take out the trash'. The first statement permits the response 'no'. It is clearly an order, with room for agency on the other side. The second statement doesn't permit a response. To disagree you have to say 'you are wrong'. The statement leaves no room for free will. It assumes the authority of the command to be overwhelming. Or perhaps it is a threat. I don't mind direct commands from a boss. But a boss that tells me what I will do, might likely find himself wrong.
- r7r8f73j 3y ago
  It might be a stylistic choice, and an Office Space meme, but I tend to prefer issuing certain kinds of instruction in a vulnerable way. So for example "Hey X, I need you to take out the trash." But tone is a little important since if you sound insincere it comes across as condescending.
  - JohnMakin 3y ago
    Some people absolutely cannot be managed that way or don’t hear “I need X” as a request to do X.
    - msrenee 3y ago
      That comes down to handling every employee as an individual and knowing what they do and don't respond to. If you've got someone who doesn't take "I need X" as a request to do X, you just adjust your phrasing so that your meaning gets through.
    - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
      How about "I need X and the only person who can do it is you"?
      - brandensilva 3y ago
        It is interesting how this changes the tone. "You will do this" no agency, no control, no considerations, skips calling out authority and goes direct "Will you do this?" Direct, has agency but potentially confrontational if you say no "I need you to do this" indicates their authority, direct, no control, could be inconsiderate to some as they overriding your priorities for their own It can to be softened up with a question but if they really need you to do it I feel like your response also softens it up. I think adding a acknowledgement of inconvenience, reason, urgency or explanation to it also helps. "Hey Jim, I know you are working on X and this will be inconvenient for you but I need you to tackle Y" ideally a reason or compliment would be good too. "I need you to do this because you have the most expertise on this and feel no one can do it well but you" "I need you to do this right now. We are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with the web server down" I feel this is an acceptable reason to demand to interrupt someone to take care of something that has a major impact on everyone And for the life saving measures saying "I need you to evacuate this building immediately" is completely acceptable to me with no reason needed. Being butt hurt over a demand versus a kind request is better than dying.
zubairq 3y ago
Good advice for marriages too!
- imhoguy 3y ago
  And parenting, or being neighbour. It's all about communication.
mattnewport 3y ago
Anyone saying "I need you to..." just makes me think of Bill Lumbergh from Office Space. Doesn't come across well at all.
- imhoguy 3y ago
  and this scene https://youtube.com/watch?v=dDseexwqm5U https://youtube.com/watch?v=dDseexwqm5U
rytis 3y ago
"Hey, we've got you a new comfy sofa, but can't get it in as there's trash everywhere" I now I come up with the solution, and execute it too. Why not do it like that? Provide context, making sure people want to do the job to achieve goals.
daviddoran 3y ago
Box’s “influence over authority” is a good read: https://boz.com/articles/influence-over-authority https://boz.com/articles/influence-over-authority
frankzander 3y ago
Tbh ... what I miss is a honest "please" and a even more honest "thank you". And all that though our parents said hopefully often "say 'please' and 'thank you'". Honest appreciation is a key which opens many doors and hearts.
surly1 3y ago
How to treat people like they're people, for robots
petercooper 3y ago
I feel there are so many more ways this would commonly go down. For instance: "That trash better be gone by the time I get back." – "Trash. Now." – "Don't forget to do the trash." .. or, perhaps the ultimate: look at person, point at trash, raise eyebrows and flare nostrils, or maybe that was just my parents.
- blackhaz 3y ago
  "We [all, as a company] need to take out the trash, and it looks like you are the best person to do it!"
jsf01 3y ago
This list excludes the way 80%+ of the commands that the leadership at my company issues tend to be done. Sure, small one-off requests from someone senior might be phrased in some of the ways mentioned in this post. Or, more commonly, something a bit more conversational like “hey can you do X”, or “we need Y by Wednesday, are you up to the task?” But the vast majority of commands from higher up aren’t issued as commands at all. Bosses don’t just tell people what to do next, it’s a collaborative process and a discussion. The team is aligned on our future goals and there’s a degree of self selecting projects to be assigned to, where the things we work on will flow naturally from our project goals. Trying to pick the best wording for what really amounts to opaque non-collaborative decision making from the top just seems like a terrible company culture.
t43562 3y ago
Commanding is a last resort usually. For me the main use is when the team needs for a decision to be made and a debate settled. In a sense I'm providing a service to the team: I'm taking the responsibility and blame if things go wrong and removing the need to go around debating in circles. If I'm giving a command it's usually to say confirm some option that other people have suggested and debated like - ok "so Bob we agree that you're going to X and Alice will do Y". At other times I want to make sure something gets done and I cannot do it or have no time to do it so I give the reason why it needs to get done first, e.g. "I'm worried that the QA's don't understand it enough to be able to test", so that the person can tell me if I'm wrong or if there's new information and then I say "could you make sure that the QA's know about it?" If you that you explain you can show that your reasoning can be questioned. Someone might say "I don't know that area well" or "I'm under great pressure to do this other thing" or they might say "that isn't the way to get what you want". I find it worth explaining the problem, suggesting solutions and encouraging the other person suggest some - then debating them briefly before making a decision. If you do other things to show an interest in someone and that you care about them a bit then the pill of taking instructions is less. If you can build rapport by finding out what intersts them, get them to talk about themselves - take their HR related requests and other interests seriously. You cannot afford to fake this - you MUST care. I also have to take commands and some are very unreasonable - those are the hard ones to deal with.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arzke 3y ago
I am not a native speaker, but I noticed that in Australia people sometimes replied to the question "Do you mind...?" with "Yes", actually meaning "No" (they don't mind). It happened enough times so that I've asked a few people why they were replying "yes" instead of "no", to which they couldn't give me a clear explanation. This really surprised me at first, but then I understood that the words didn't matter as much as the tone of voice. Is that something common in Australia? Or in any other country? Or was that only a non-representative sample that happened to make the same mistake?
- datadeft 3y ago
  This is common practice in the US as well.
- willis936 3y ago
  As a US native I've made a habit of not using one word responses to questions that have ambiguous binary responses. "Not at all." "I don't mind." "I do mind."
- stephen_g 3y ago
  As an Australian I’d find that strange without a following clarification, in which case the clarifying clause is doing the answering and the first bit is just sentiment. There’s also the possibility of using both yes and no, usually rendered as “Yeah nah” or “Nah yeah” - with the first generally being negative and the second being positive. So some examples, both being “Yes I’ll do it” - “Do you mind taking out the rubbish” “Nah, that’s fine” (No actually answers the question and then you confirm) “Do you mind taking out the rubbish?” “Oh yeah, no problem” (Yes just acting as sentiment) Or “Do you mind taking out the rubbish?” “Nah yeah, all good” Or to say you do mind, you might say “Yeah nah, sorry I’m busy”
sublinear 3y ago
I have a rule of thumb for determining how difficult it is to be the boss somewhere. Maybe this is obvious, but I've learned it the hard way. Look at the experience of your team and the complexity of the projects. High complexity and low experience cannot be solved with "soft skills" no matter how much the business insists that it can. In that situation you're not a bad boss, just at the wrong place. Don't let incompetent upper management bully you. That's how they've kept their jobs this whole time after all. Nobody would ever think to be "bossy" in the first place if there weren't some underlying complexity being misunderstood and/or ignored. It's not just a matter of investigating this complexity and telling people what to do in a nice way, nor is it a matter of doing it yourself or finding extra resources to pitch in. Often it's just completely fucked and they want you to sit on the grenade.
camgunz 3y ago
It's not about commanding or asking or whatever, you're not trying to get Siri to set a timer. It's about actual human relationships. Your job as a manager is to help them achieve both their individual goals and your collective goals, in that order. A lot of that is coaching and building alignment, but you also need to tangle with the organization to protect your team. Once you prove to your people that you're doing that, you shouldn't have trouble talking to them.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
AuthorizedCust 3y ago
It starts poorly: > Leaders command people. No, that’s administration. Leaders may need to administer, too, but come on, leadership isn’t administration!
bluenose69 3y ago
Every team has a way of expressing things. Teams exist in communities that, again, have particular ways of expressing things. In my work environment (in my community) the typical expression is "Could you please". This is clear and nobody takes offence. More importantly, it invites a response. Perhaps the person is already busy doing something else. Perhaps they lack the skill to accomplish the task. Asking instead of telling provides the boss with useful information, so it's about more than politeness. As for the website being discussed, I find the rankings odd. Quite a few of the discussed alternatives don't seem harsh to me at all, and I think they deserve 0 stars. Frankly, depending on the circumstance and the community, even those rated the harshest would be perfectly okay. "Don't stand there" can save someone from losing a limb in a factory. "Keep your head below the horizon" can keep someone alive. It all depends. And a boss who cannot pick up on how things are communicated in a given team is unlikely to be of much use.
Amadi23 3y ago
This contribute rests on limited and control & command conceptualization and practice of leadership. You can do that. The question is, when/where/withhwhom is it appropriate and useful. I argue that a leadership practice that is successful in today's complex environment is - flexible in style (within the command & control paradigm) - rooted in the trust & inspire paradig The latter is kind of orthogonal to what's discussed in the text. I recommend everybody to look into this, particularly those of you who are sitting in a highly complex environment and/or who has/wants to deal with the next generation of (w.e.i.r.d.) talent.
FFP999 3y ago
Glad to see this article. It reminds me of a tech lead I once had: very skilled engineer, great guy (we still hang out now, long after I left that job), but we communicated differently. I come from a background where people think they're being subtle if they don't grab the front of your shirt when they're talking. His background must have been very different: we had a problem on a number of occasions where he would ask me to do something, he would leave the conversation with the idea that I had agreed to do the thing, and I was completely unaware that he had even asked.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- lo_zamoyski 3y ago
  This isn't foreplay. No one has time to read the tea leaves of someone else's "subtleties" and murky language. It's a waste of time and cognitive effort. Directness is a virtue. By directness, of course, I mean clear language that is to the point, not aggressive and disrespectful imposition. If you need something, then that's what you should say. The answer should likewise be direct. Yeses and noes, and because. Common sense is one thing, as we don't necessarily want to have to spell everything out (and even here, there generally exists a space of reasonable difference of opinion and approach, and mutual familiarity also breeds implicit context), but it is uncharitable to put people into a position where they must constantly strain their minds to try to determine what you need, only to punish them for failing to meet your preciously specific and indeterminate expectations. This can quickly become abusive, not to mention annoying. To wit: Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, non-committal language. (Rule 12, William Strunk, Jr.) Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5:37)
  - FFP999 3y ago
    I don't fault him for this: I assume that's just what he learned at home. The ultimate lesson I take from this thread is that people's preferences in this matter are all over the place, and if you want to be a leader (as opposed to, say, a manager), you have to be able to be flexible in your approach. It's a matter of picking the right tool for the job. Since this tech lead and I are both (relatively) mature adults, eventually I simply told him he needed to be more direct with me if he wanted me to understand him, he said that he was not entirely comfortable with that but he would try, and we got by well enough after that.
gytdev 3y ago
You need/must/have to/imperative that you do = oppositionality The best boss I had either said: Can You help me out by...x Justification, then command...x The room is really messy, can you...x Please do this... I really agree with the Cialdini's method of giving justifications for requests. It works very well for me personally
grvdrm 3y ago
My simple take is asking someone to do something should follow two simple rules: 1. Give some context. Not a novel. But some understanding of why. Then be direct. 2. Don’t all the sudden start insulting them when you ask them to do something. I know, sounds easy, but there are a lot of personalities out there.
GreedClarifies 3y ago
How to boss correctly : 1. be straight with people 2. periodically have a discussion about what the people want and how/if your goals are aligned 3. explain how you can help people get their objectives 4. Depending upon complexity, explain perhaps in detail, why a task is aligned Align goals, if doing tasks is in a person's best then they will do it. Otherwise there will be friction that helps no one.

422 points by putzdown 3y ago

mvdl 3y ago

"Leaders command people". No, real leaders don't. Those with a military background that have been in situations where shit was all over the fan will agree.

tjpnz 3y ago

Would you kindly take out the trash?

tennisflyi 3y ago

I like the chart and examples. Thanks! I'm going to read over theme here in a bit.

Tempest1981 3y ago
I need you to do it now.

gardenhedge 3y ago

I like this approach - with the extra clarity added "The trash needs to be taken out because <x>. Can you look after that <within timeframe>?" Clarity: 5/5 Harshness: 1/5

axlee 3y ago
"Why should I be the one to take out the trash?"
- rizky05 3y ago
  [dead]
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  Let's assume the context is a boss asking the employee to do something that is part of the job. At that point, it's fine to discuss if the workload can be shared among the team, if appropriate.
rightbyte 3y ago
"Can you clear out three points of trash mountain til next Friday? Five points? No, it is three." These analogies fail in that the scope of taking out the trash is way too clear.
- gardenhedge 3y ago
  You're using points here as an estimate of the workload. The points in my comment are following the same point system as in the article.
gardenhedge 3y ago
I am intrigued by the downvoters. Can you explain the downvotes please? In my mind it works perfectly at all levels. It's clear and direct and it invites feedback. "As part of our customer satisfaction strategy, we need an online portal. Mary, can you take ownership of this stream?" "We're due to deliver the pie chart feature this week and there's still multiple code reviews outstanding. Bob, Dylan and Charlie, can you work together and get this done by the end of the week?" "There's a bug affecting two of our top customers. To avoid losing them as customers, we will need to get it investigated and fixed as a top priority. Jane, can you look into this today and give me an update by the end of the day?"

cmclaughlin 3y ago

Here's how my wife does it... "Do you want to take out the trash?" My engineer mind interprets it literally every time :) Usually I don't mind taking out the trash... but occasionally I don't really want to. I have to always translate this to "She wants me to take out the trash".

docandrew 3y ago
There’s a funny comedy bit about the passive-aggressive phrasing “we need to <take out the trash, clean up the yard, etc>”. “Is that a _he_ need, or a _she_ need?” Who’s we in this scenario?
User23 3y ago
“No.”
- quickthrower2 3y ago
  Is the answer from those not yet brainwashed. Aka kids!
amatecha 3y ago
Yeah, sometimes I respond to those like "well, no, I don't want to, but I will if you'd like". haha :)
quickthrower2 3y ago
Or. “It’s OK i’ll take out the trash”
- yCombLinks 3y ago
  That makes me so mad! Just put down a checklist and I'll gladly do it! Not sure why emotional manipulation needs to happen!
  - bibabaloo 3y ago
    The subtext here is probably that the asking person doesn't _want_ to be commanding, much less making checklists. :)

ska 3y ago

This seems a bit superficial, because it concentrates only how you communicate an instruction to people. I suspect, especially in high competence and nominally high trust environments like (much of) tech, mostly when people consider a superior "bossy" it's not because of the way they communicate (though that could contribute) but because they do not trust the communication or the motivations behind it, or question why they (the boss) are getting involved at all. To put it another way, if there is a high degree of trust anyway you are likely forgiven a harsher communication style, but if the the trust isn't there no amount of wordsmithing that will improve it. That being said, poor communication styles will ruffle feathers and cause problems, and if you are leading people you should learn to do this better. I just don't think that's at the heart of what being considered "bossy" is, so working on it won't likely fix that.

roenxi 3y ago
I'd put that the author hasn't managed people in a multicultural team before. It quickly becomes apparent that there is a cultural component to communication style that changes language expectations by a lot. And at the end of the day word choice doesn't matter much. There is a deeper aspect to watch which is response over time - "tracking what does the boss say to me?" as it transforms into "What are the consequences later on?". A big part of being "bossy" IMO is creating consequences for getting trivial instructions wrong.
kevinmchugh 3y ago
Similarly (and at risk of focusing too much on the example), in a high competency and high trust environment, identifying a task as quotidian as taking out the trash ought to be pretty rare. If you have a bunch of highly capable professionals, they shouldn't need commanding and they should be pretty capable of keeping their workspace functional.
goodpoint 3y ago
Not just superficial but even manipulative.

IsaacL 3y ago

This is a terrible article that rambles on for far too long without offering an actually polite way to tell/request someone to do something. These are the best approaches: 1. "Please take out the trash." 2. "The trash needs to be taken out. Can you do it?" 3. (If there are several people around). "The trash needs to be taken out. Who can do it?" Extra consideration: I'm assuming this refers to a context where there's a prior agreement in place that A can tell B what to do (e.g. a business, where B signs a contract stating that he has sold X hours/day to the organisation). It usually should be unnecessary to bark out orders or to beat around the bush -- both are insulting: if B is a functioning adult they accept that they work for an organisation and so need to complete certain tasks. However, direct instructions are rarely necessary for knowledge workers or highly-skilled professionals. Unless things have broken down horribly, they're aware that the success of the business they work for will contribute to their own career success. E.g., instead of "you will write unit tests today" or "would you mind terribly writing unit tests today?", A would do best saying something like "we're introducing too many regressions when we change things, we need a better testing strategy -- let's discuss our approach to unit testing" and then let the team weigh in with their own ideas so they have ownership over whatever is decided.

brailsafe 3y ago
> "they're aware that the success of the business they work for will contribute to their own career success." If this was commonly true, then it wouldn't also be commonly true to feel best served by switching companies every 2 years. Other than simply continuing to be employed, but even that's tenuous and often volatile. > "Unless things have broken down horribly" It's a lucky individual who's never experienced this in their career.
woooooo 3y ago
"Best" has to be subjective here? My personal favorite, combo of 2 listed, would he "I need X to happen"
- timeagain 3y ago
  Subjective it must be, if my boss talked like that it would give me flashbacks to entitled customers I had working in food service. Edit: to expand, the “I need” language has an implicit imperative. Since it is implicit, the listener/employee needs to internalize the command, and internalize the idea that the bosses “needs” are the employees “wants”. Maybe I’m psychologizing too much, but I haven’t ever met someone who talked like that who I could get along with. A baby cries when it needs something, mommy responds. As adults we should handle our own needs by turning them into actions to fulfill them ourselves or requests to have others fulfill them.

xepriot 3y ago

Neuroticising over how to word your commands (polite requests) is slave mindset, and such a person who does this is not a 'leader'. What makes a leader is not how you word things. But almost nobody walking around in corporate america has an inspiringly authoritative personality, and you can't make yourself into one very easily, so retarded articles like this are the best they can do. If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this', the follower actually wants to do it and does not care about how carefully you handle their feelings.

happytoexplain 3y ago
>If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this', the follower actually wants to do it and does not care about how carefully you handle their feelings. Nope, communicating with humans is the same art whether you think you are a leader or not. Some cultures have a strong sense of hierarchy, which in their business interactions is expressed in the petty, demeaning game of "act like a sycophant insect to those above you and treat those below you as pawns to be commanded", which has the same effect as what you're describing, but civilized people tend to reject that. Edit: Note that this is not a defense of the article, which starts off incorrect at sentence one. It's easy to confuse the concept of a command hierarchy, like a military, and a cooperation hierarchy, which is the way a healthy business operates (though this is perhaps the minority of businesses, because a command hierarchy is more effective if your employees mostly don't give a shit or are miserable or incompetent, any of which problems may or may not be their fault).
- financltravsty 3y ago
  Not all humans are equal. Some still retain the spirit of wonder and awe -- dare I say zest -- that allows them to find inspiration. Whether that is through internal or external means, they still can be impelled to act by the right stimulus. To be civilized is to bend to genteel sensibilities; and nothing inspiring ever comes from that. Logically sound, rational, and convincing sure; but never inspiring.
- xepriot 3y ago
  you demonstrate the slave mindset. you cannot imagine and so reject the possibility of an individual with the charismatic power to make those below him not feel like insects yet at the same time not neuroticise or even consciously attend at at all to how he comports himself. These individuals are not rare, either - but you cannot see them properly, likely because of the same resentment which causes you to describe followers, again, as 'insects'. This understanding is not available to your 'concepts' or however you want to terminologize your gay taxonomy of hierarchies. either you get it - you get that people instinctively want to have someone above them to respect, and even admire (love), while they obey - or you don't.

somewhereoutth 3y ago

Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if they are not actually talking to me myself. But more seriously: Ensure people know what and why something is important, ideally by arriving at that conclusion jointly and as part of an overarching plan that everyone can feel involved in - thus requests shouldn't be a surprise, they aren't coming from you so much as from the plan (nebulous though it may be). Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information. Show consideration for other pressures that somebody might be under. Listen when they say no. Close the loop so that good results get back to the person who did the thing. Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with plane crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame. Be ready to help out others as they have helped out you.

jmye 3y ago
I think the article’s advice to think about and notice phrasing is good: we should all be aware of the words we use, and how they sound. But I think your suggestions mirror my experience in actually getting the person to do the thing. The other benefit is that the same steps, more or less, work well when managing up as well as down.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Absolutely. Words matter. However, one thing I have found is that when you go around telling people to do things, they frequently tend to do them. Sometimes, that's fine. After all, I would assume no rational human is going to "command" someone to do a thing if they don't think they want that thing done. Personally, I've found that pointing people in a general direction ends up yielding far superior results. Empower your team, and they'll surprise you, usually in a good way.
  - romafirst3 3y ago
    It depends on the team and the stakes. Sometimes your team will surprise you but often they’ll horribly disappoint you. If the stakes are low, sure do whatever, but if shit matters …

CPLX 3y ago

What about “your assignment is” or “you are responsible for” or similar? Surprised not to see them there. The problem with all these is they’re personal. Like it’s what I want you to do. But it’s business. The actual raw communication seems like it should be more like an explanation of how your current role relates to this specific task (ie you have to do it) as well as how other people will be involved, if any.

tonymet 3y ago

“I need you to …” is too low level. It’s better to set the objective, how success will be measured, and who will care about it (usually a customer or partner), what the stakes are , and when we need to wrap up. If you find yourself as a manager telling people what to do and how to do it, take a step back.

inopinatus 3y ago
"Your goal today is maintaining capacity and throughput in our waste disposal pipeline. How you get that done is up to you." Engineer: invents self-dumping garbage bags

User23 3y ago

This entire premise is silly. What’s next, how to parent without being parenty? How to direct without being directory? How to conduct without being conducty? If you’re in authority over people pretending that you’re not is just insulting. Just be polite and give commands as are appropriate for your position.

therealcamino 3y ago

The author is way too enamored of "I need" or "The trash needs" constructions that are passive-aggressive. I would go nuts if my manager talked to me that way. This is all very subjective, but at a minimum be direct, and polite. There's a lot of confusion here between directness and harshness, and it's missing perspective on lots of elements of human communication.

Paul-Craft 3y ago
Agreed. I'm surprised the author didn't explore variations on "we need to..." or "the {org|team|division|company} needs to..." Those turns of phrases are more inspiring than they are commanding.
- hugh-avherald 3y ago
  "One of our valued younger customers had blocked up the toilets with Monster Munch. Now I need that toilet back in play. Let's approach that as a team, shall we? How can we make that happen?"
  - goldenkey 3y ago
    I call a rapid-fire SCRUM meeting, topic: Monster Munch Lunch
- refurb 3y ago
  Pretty much this. The challenges ahead are for the team to solve. It should be a team discussion on how to plan and divide the work up. There is always boring work involved, but posing it to the team and being straightforward “hey this isn’t the most exciting thing, but we need to get it done” usually gets a volunteer. The more empowered the team feels when work is planned out, the less pushback you tend to get.

dontupvoteme 3y ago

>Clarity axis That is debatable and part of a fundamental cultural divide between, at a minimum - the USA, the UK and Continental Europe.

latchkey 3y ago

I feel like nobody is addressing the fact that I already took out the trash before you even asked. Now that is how to win points with the SO.

number6 3y ago
That's a hidden contract; don't get resentful if it is not appreciated the way you expect
imhoguy 3y ago
But that was yesterday, the bin is full again :)

blotato 3y ago

The more trust and respect there is among a group of people, the more direct they can be with each other, without coming off as harsh. There is a lot of implicit communication in a relationship with deep trust and respect at its core. You can say less, very directly, and usually get what you want, without offending anyone.

1letterunixname 3y ago
Yes. The trick is good rapport, a sense of humor, and respect rather than familiarity leading to contempt. One anti-pattern I've seen is the "big fish in tiny bowl" syndrome where a certain person evolves over the years into an overpaid, arrogant asshole.
- blotato 3y ago
  Also the problem with formulaic wording, as prescribed in the blog, is that it promotes overthinking about the wrong thing. You overthink the particular phrasing and intonation, rather than thinking about how to improve your relationship with others which would yield substantially more positive results. And when you hesitate from overthinking, people can sense that you're not being authentic or genuine.

shusaku 3y ago

I’m learning how to delegate these days, and it’s teaching me that I’m a bad communicator. I appreciate the clarity discussion, but in the real world it’s even harder. At least everyone knows what taking out the trash involves! But when it involves delegating a complex task, concerns about being bossy means you might fail to explain the precise requirements of the task you’re delegating.

maliker 3y ago

The trick is to remember that your job as the boss is to help your employees do their best work. Once that’s established, the language comes naturally. That said, “can you do X?” usually always works. The answer is almost always yes. If it’s no, there’s probably a good reason why that lets you rethink the request.

inopinatus 3y ago

This is some low performance team they must be managing. Interrupt-driven task allocation is inherently dysfunctional. In a high performance team, it's more like managing a band. The manager is not the talent. You are Brian Epstein, not John Lennon. You enable the talent. You hire smart people, give them goals and the resources they need, then get the fuck out of their way. They don't take out the trash. You do it. Or hire a janitor, since it seems you value the task; that's someone who didn't need asking, because GC is already in their JD.

rswail 3y ago

I've been a team leader and other "management" positions and most of the time, my job is to shield the team from external issues to allow them to do our needed work. It's also part of my job to show, by example, dedication to our common goals, even if that means that I'm there during overnight deployments or other uncomfortable / less-than-ideal activities. So I see myself as an equal that has a different role to the others in the team. There are occasions when there's something that breaks through that shield and then when I do ask either an individual or the team, they understand that I'm asking them to do something that I couldn't avoid or do myself.

solatic 3y ago

If you're looking for the right turn of phrase, you already lost. As a leader, you need to establish a rapport (with someone who is anyway initially inclined to desire rapport with you, because you're their boss and have outsize influence over future compensation) and negotiate over high-level context: IC availability and understanding what problems need solving. If everyone understands the problem and there's mutual trust, the details take care of themselves. Of course, "establish mutual trust" is a whole megillah unto itself. But if it exists, "take out the trash" is not bossy. If it doesn't exist, "could we take out the trash?" is incredibly rude.

neontomo 3y ago
I agree with you. Looking for the right word is missing the point and to me feels like overanalysing instead of understanding. I've only worked in one manager position but I noticed that different people liked different styles - some want to understand why we're doing something and figure out the best way to do it themselves, as it gives them agency and confidence in their abilities - others felt overwhelmed and wanted a more direct approach (do this, in this specific way, in this amount of time) and didn't care what the reason was. If your staff knows your character and that you will stand up for them and back their needs in the work place, the phrasing is secondary. The most important thing for me is to see the individual before directing them, and that takes time, empathy but also for them to see that I'm worthy of listening to (the criteria differ here).
strken 3y ago
"We need the trash taken out. Bob, are you going to be in the office Friday and can you do it?" is arguably better. I can't think of a situation in software development where you need someone to just go do something with zero discussion because seconds matter, other than maybe on-call.
PunchTornado 3y ago
I disagree. No matter how much trust there is I accept nobody to tell me "I need you to do ..." or some other direct variant. Fortunately I encountered few bad bosses like this.

kstenerud 3y ago

This is one way to command, but it isn't the best way, because the "best" way depends on the people you command. Some prefer hands-on, others prefer hands-off. Some like very strong decisiveness ("You do this") while others prefer a more consensus-style approach ("let's get opinions on this"). At the end of the day, it comes down to "know your audience". You'll have your own preferred way of leadership, and the people under you will have theirs. Your job is to find a synergy whereby your leadership actions inspire the majority rather than repels them. There will always be some who don't like your style, but you can't make everyone happy. And there will always be other leaders with opinions on leadership, but they're usually talking about their people, not yours. All that matters is: Are you effective in moving your organization, and are the majority whom you lead inspired?

opportune 3y ago
Agree with this. It also goes beyond preference to the level of guidance and autonomy the person needs to be effective (even if they want a lot of autonomy, it might be better to not give them it). Also the nature of the work itself - if must-haves totally book your team you really can’t give them much flexibility or autonomy outside those must-haves.

happytiger 3y ago

Good tech leaders generally don’t command: they inspire. And when you’re at the point where you’re trying to figure out the “right way to say things” you’ve already, utterly, failed. Good tech leaders influence, guide, and grow people. They are honest and authentic. The management style I have seen work the best is when people act in a real, genuine and sincere ways that are true to who they are as individuals and avoid manipulative behavior. They can still be hard chargers. They can still be abrasive. But they generally have a great degree of self-honesty and consideration to others to go along with their ambition. Spending oceans of time trying to figure out the right turn of phrase is a terrible idea. It’s focusing more on how things look rather than putting the focus on how things are and how things should be. Obviously there are oceans of management styles. But I can say that the smooth talking, super considered people who are focused on how exactly to say things rather than bigger picture leadership ideals are typically to worst, most manipulative people I have ever worked with.

opportune 3y ago
I don’t think this is necessarily true. Delegation is the name of the game in any large organization - managers exist to sift down tasks to a doer. You can’t delegate many kinds of tasks by inspiring people. You can generally only inspire people into things they want to do and find interesting anyway but the unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of boring/annoying/not fun stuff that needs to be done and it can’t all be done by the CEO alone.
- happytiger 3y ago
  Managers are leaders are vastly different animals that are often incorrectly conflated.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Correct. Managers handle process and paperwork. Leaders direct, influence, inspire, and occasionally even cajole or prod. It's the difference between a bureaucrat and a bard. The best managers are both, but you definitely want to make sure you're not sending a paper pusher to do a playwright's job.

j7ake 3y ago

This article is not meaningful without more context. What the boss should say to employees needs to be at a high enough level (eg overarching goals) so that a capable employee can create their own plan to achieve it, but not so high level that the employee cannot see the steps needed to go forward. Ideally this high level goal should push the employee just beyond its capabilities, but the boss knows who to connect with in case they need help. In practice that matters much more than whether you say please or need or can or want.

rocqua 3y ago

I find 'take out the trash' so much less hsrsher than 'you will take out the trash'. The first statement permits the response 'no'. It is clearly an order, with room for agency on the other side. The second statement doesn't permit a response. To disagree you have to say 'you are wrong'. The statement leaves no room for free will. It assumes the authority of the command to be overwhelming. Or perhaps it is a threat. I don't mind direct commands from a boss. But a boss that tells me what I will do, might likely find himself wrong.

r7r8f73j 3y ago
It might be a stylistic choice, and an Office Space meme, but I tend to prefer issuing certain kinds of instruction in a vulnerable way. So for example "Hey X, I need you to take out the trash." But tone is a little important since if you sound insincere it comes across as condescending.
- JohnMakin 3y ago
  Some people absolutely cannot be managed that way or don’t hear “I need X” as a request to do X.
  - msrenee 3y ago
    That comes down to handling every employee as an individual and knowing what they do and don't respond to. If you've got someone who doesn't take "I need X" as a request to do X, you just adjust your phrasing so that your meaning gets through.
  - Jeff_Brown 3y ago
    How about "I need X and the only person who can do it is you"?
    - brandensilva 3y ago
      It is interesting how this changes the tone. "You will do this" no agency, no control, no considerations, skips calling out authority and goes direct "Will you do this?" Direct, has agency but potentially confrontational if you say no "I need you to do this" indicates their authority, direct, no control, could be inconsiderate to some as they overriding your priorities for their own It can to be softened up with a question but if they really need you to do it I feel like your response also softens it up. I think adding a acknowledgement of inconvenience, reason, urgency or explanation to it also helps. "Hey Jim, I know you are working on X and this will be inconvenient for you but I need you to tackle Y" ideally a reason or compliment would be good too. "I need you to do this because you have the most expertise on this and feel no one can do it well but you" "I need you to do this right now. We are losing hundreds of thousands of dollars with the web server down" I feel this is an acceptable reason to demand to interrupt someone to take care of something that has a major impact on everyone And for the life saving measures saying "I need you to evacuate this building immediately" is completely acceptable to me with no reason needed. Being butt hurt over a demand versus a kind request is better than dying.

zubairq 3y ago

Good advice for marriages too!

imhoguy 3y ago
And parenting, or being neighbour. It's all about communication.

mattnewport 3y ago

Anyone saying "I need you to..." just makes me think of Bill Lumbergh from Office Space. Doesn't come across well at all.

imhoguy 3y ago
and this scene https://youtube.com/watch?v=dDseexwqm5U https://youtube.com/watch?v=dDseexwqm5U

rytis 3y ago

"Hey, we've got you a new comfy sofa, but can't get it in as there's trash everywhere" I now I come up with the solution, and execute it too. Why not do it like that? Provide context, making sure people want to do the job to achieve goals.

daviddoran 3y ago

Box’s “influence over authority” is a good read: https://boz.com/articles/influence-over-authority https://boz.com/articles/influence-over-authority

frankzander 3y ago

Tbh ... what I miss is a honest "please" and a even more honest "thank you". And all that though our parents said hopefully often "say 'please' and 'thank you'". Honest appreciation is a key which opens many doors and hearts.

surly1 3y ago

How to treat people like they're people, for robots

petercooper 3y ago

I feel there are so many more ways this would commonly go down. For instance: "That trash better be gone by the time I get back." – "Trash. Now." – "Don't forget to do the trash." .. or, perhaps the ultimate: look at person, point at trash, raise eyebrows and flare nostrils, or maybe that was just my parents.

blackhaz 3y ago
"We [all, as a company] need to take out the trash, and it looks like you are the best person to do it!"

jsf01 3y ago

This list excludes the way 80%+ of the commands that the leadership at my company issues tend to be done. Sure, small one-off requests from someone senior might be phrased in some of the ways mentioned in this post. Or, more commonly, something a bit more conversational like “hey can you do X”, or “we need Y by Wednesday, are you up to the task?” But the vast majority of commands from higher up aren’t issued as commands at all. Bosses don’t just tell people what to do next, it’s a collaborative process and a discussion. The team is aligned on our future goals and there’s a degree of self selecting projects to be assigned to, where the things we work on will flow naturally from our project goals. Trying to pick the best wording for what really amounts to opaque non-collaborative decision making from the top just seems like a terrible company culture.

t43562 3y ago

Commanding is a last resort usually. For me the main use is when the team needs for a decision to be made and a debate settled. In a sense I'm providing a service to the team: I'm taking the responsibility and blame if things go wrong and removing the need to go around debating in circles. If I'm giving a command it's usually to say confirm some option that other people have suggested and debated like - ok "so Bob we agree that you're going to X and Alice will do Y". At other times I want to make sure something gets done and I cannot do it or have no time to do it so I give the reason why it needs to get done first, e.g. "I'm worried that the QA's don't understand it enough to be able to test", so that the person can tell me if I'm wrong or if there's new information and then I say "could you make sure that the QA's know about it?" If you that you explain you can show that your reasoning can be questioned. Someone might say "I don't know that area well" or "I'm under great pressure to do this other thing" or they might say "that isn't the way to get what you want". I find it worth explaining the problem, suggesting solutions and encouraging the other person suggest some - then debating them briefly before making a decision. If you do other things to show an interest in someone and that you care about them a bit then the pill of taking instructions is less. If you can build rapport by finding out what intersts them, get them to talk about themselves - take their HR related requests and other interests seriously. You cannot afford to fake this - you MUST care. I also have to take commands and some are very unreasonable - those are the hard ones to deal with.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arzke 3y ago

I am not a native speaker, but I noticed that in Australia people sometimes replied to the question "Do you mind...?" with "Yes", actually meaning "No" (they don't mind). It happened enough times so that I've asked a few people why they were replying "yes" instead of "no", to which they couldn't give me a clear explanation. This really surprised me at first, but then I understood that the words didn't matter as much as the tone of voice. Is that something common in Australia? Or in any other country? Or was that only a non-representative sample that happened to make the same mistake?

datadeft 3y ago
This is common practice in the US as well.
willis936 3y ago
As a US native I've made a habit of not using one word responses to questions that have ambiguous binary responses. "Not at all." "I don't mind." "I do mind."
stephen_g 3y ago
As an Australian I’d find that strange without a following clarification, in which case the clarifying clause is doing the answering and the first bit is just sentiment. There’s also the possibility of using both yes and no, usually rendered as “Yeah nah” or “Nah yeah” - with the first generally being negative and the second being positive. So some examples, both being “Yes I’ll do it” - “Do you mind taking out the rubbish” “Nah, that’s fine” (No actually answers the question and then you confirm) “Do you mind taking out the rubbish?” “Oh yeah, no problem” (Yes just acting as sentiment) Or “Do you mind taking out the rubbish?” “Nah yeah, all good” Or to say you do mind, you might say “Yeah nah, sorry I’m busy”

sublinear 3y ago

I have a rule of thumb for determining how difficult it is to be the boss somewhere. Maybe this is obvious, but I've learned it the hard way. Look at the experience of your team and the complexity of the projects. High complexity and low experience cannot be solved with "soft skills" no matter how much the business insists that it can. In that situation you're not a bad boss, just at the wrong place. Don't let incompetent upper management bully you. That's how they've kept their jobs this whole time after all. Nobody would ever think to be "bossy" in the first place if there weren't some underlying complexity being misunderstood and/or ignored. It's not just a matter of investigating this complexity and telling people what to do in a nice way, nor is it a matter of doing it yourself or finding extra resources to pitch in. Often it's just completely fucked and they want you to sit on the grenade.

camgunz 3y ago

It's not about commanding or asking or whatever, you're not trying to get Siri to set a timer. It's about actual human relationships. Your job as a manager is to help them achieve both their individual goals and your collective goals, in that order. A lot of that is coaching and building alignment, but you also need to tangle with the organization to protect your team. Once you prove to your people that you're doing that, you shouldn't have trouble talking to them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

AuthorizedCust 3y ago

It starts poorly: > Leaders command people. No, that’s administration. Leaders may need to administer, too, but come on, leadership isn’t administration!

bluenose69 3y ago

Every team has a way of expressing things. Teams exist in communities that, again, have particular ways of expressing things. In my work environment (in my community) the typical expression is "Could you please". This is clear and nobody takes offence. More importantly, it invites a response. Perhaps the person is already busy doing something else. Perhaps they lack the skill to accomplish the task. Asking instead of telling provides the boss with useful information, so it's about more than politeness. As for the website being discussed, I find the rankings odd. Quite a few of the discussed alternatives don't seem harsh to me at all, and I think they deserve 0 stars. Frankly, depending on the circumstance and the community, even those rated the harshest would be perfectly okay. "Don't stand there" can save someone from losing a limb in a factory. "Keep your head below the horizon" can keep someone alive. It all depends. And a boss who cannot pick up on how things are communicated in a given team is unlikely to be of much use.

Amadi23 3y ago

This contribute rests on limited and control & command conceptualization and practice of leadership. You can do that. The question is, when/where/withhwhom is it appropriate and useful. I argue that a leadership practice that is successful in today's complex environment is - flexible in style (within the command & control paradigm) - rooted in the trust & inspire paradig The latter is kind of orthogonal to what's discussed in the text. I recommend everybody to look into this, particularly those of you who are sitting in a highly complex environment and/or who has/wants to deal with the next generation of (w.e.i.r.d.) talent.

FFP999 3y ago

Glad to see this article. It reminds me of a tech lead I once had: very skilled engineer, great guy (we still hang out now, long after I left that job), but we communicated differently. I come from a background where people think they're being subtle if they don't grab the front of your shirt when they're talking. His background must have been very different: we had a problem on a number of occasions where he would ask me to do something, he would leave the conversation with the idea that I had agreed to do the thing, and I was completely unaware that he had even asked.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
lo_zamoyski 3y ago
This isn't foreplay. No one has time to read the tea leaves of someone else's "subtleties" and murky language. It's a waste of time and cognitive effort. Directness is a virtue. By directness, of course, I mean clear language that is to the point, not aggressive and disrespectful imposition. If you need something, then that's what you should say. The answer should likewise be direct. Yeses and noes, and because. Common sense is one thing, as we don't necessarily want to have to spell everything out (and even here, there generally exists a space of reasonable difference of opinion and approach, and mutual familiarity also breeds implicit context), but it is uncharitable to put people into a position where they must constantly strain their minds to try to determine what you need, only to punish them for failing to meet your preciously specific and indeterminate expectations. This can quickly become abusive, not to mention annoying. To wit: Make definite assertions. Avoid tame, colorless, hesitating, non-committal language. (Rule 12, William Strunk, Jr.) Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil. (Matthew 5:37)
- FFP999 3y ago
  I don't fault him for this: I assume that's just what he learned at home. The ultimate lesson I take from this thread is that people's preferences in this matter are all over the place, and if you want to be a leader (as opposed to, say, a manager), you have to be able to be flexible in your approach. It's a matter of picking the right tool for the job. Since this tech lead and I are both (relatively) mature adults, eventually I simply told him he needed to be more direct with me if he wanted me to understand him, he said that he was not entirely comfortable with that but he would try, and we got by well enough after that.

gytdev 3y ago

You need/must/have to/imperative that you do = oppositionality The best boss I had either said: Can You help me out by...x Justification, then command...x The room is really messy, can you...x Please do this... I really agree with the Cialdini's method of giving justifications for requests. It works very well for me personally

grvdrm 3y ago

My simple take is asking someone to do something should follow two simple rules: 1. Give some context. Not a novel. But some understanding of why. Then be direct. 2. Don’t all the sudden start insulting them when you ask them to do something. I know, sounds easy, but there are a lot of personalities out there.

GreedClarifies 3y ago

How to boss correctly : 1. be straight with people 2. periodically have a discussion about what the people want and how/if your goals are aligned 3. explain how you can help people get their objectives 4. Depending upon complexity, explain perhaps in detail, why a task is aligned Align goals, if doing tasks is in a person's best then they will do it. Otherwise there will be friction that helps no one.