9 ms·

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

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 …
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      I count being horribly disappointed as being surprised, just with the sign reversed. That's the risk you have to take as a leader. But, yeah, if it's a high stakes, do or die situation, do what needs to be done, even if that's something like getting 3 different groups to work on the problem independently, or something. Long term, if you have the right team, the positive surprises will more than cancel out the disappointments and the "meh" results. But, if it's a life or death type matter, fuck the long term -- you have to survive the short term before you start worrying about that. You can't manage or lead an organization that's at war the same way you would one that's at peace, and nor should you try.
    - yamakadi 3y ago
      Fully agree. Unfortunately, not everyone wants a general direction. A list of things to do and by when so they can plan out their day and only do what’s necessary yields baseline expected results and frees you to give more attention to team members who do want the freedom to choose their tasks and contribute to strategy, etc. Worst are the people who both don’t like the “I need you to …” task giving and do absolutely nothing when left alone or only given a goal and a direction. How do you deal with it if you are working on an industry where performance adjustments and feedback can take years and you can coast without doing anything four more than a couple of years?
    - roenxi 3y ago
      An advanced trick (not sure why, it seems easy enough) is to point someone in the general direction, wait a day, then sit down with them for 60 minutes and ask/talk to them about what they're planning on doing. Then you get the creativity without the surprise. Maybe even check in on them a few times as work goes on. The bad engineering managers I've seen seem to suffer from anthropophobia when they aren't giving orders in a meeting room.
1letterunixname 3y ago
Yes. Good bosses do the shitty and awkward tasks for anyone else to do. When a specific task absolutely needs to be done, the boss asks for volunteers, delegates, or does it themselves in that order. The era of militarist corporations dictating downward, monopolizing information like it's some fucking government intelligence agency, and employees bending the knee to inflated egos upward is over. Bosses now are organizational and individual employee facilitators of said employees getting shit done and improvements thereof. Laying out what milestones need to get done and helpful bits to get there without micromanaging. Checking in and asking questions if there are any blocking items is okay. Open-mindedness, dispassionate failure analysis, and 360 feedback are important to maintain professionalism and growth.
gvurrdon 3y ago
All good stuff, indeed. > 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. Definitely. I'd like to see a lot more of that, but the default often seems to be blame. I recall a system at a place I worked where the stakeholders (native or skilled non-native English speakers) would produce requirements by holding meetings with the developer (much less skilled non-native speaker), dictate what they wanted, and have the developer take notes (which the stakeholders would not check) then immediately implement the software. When the resulting software was built incorrectly they would blame the developer for incompetence, and hold another meeting.
sspiff 3y ago
In my personal experience, I prefer people saying "I need you to" over "If you could just". The "nice" corner of the chart simply screams hypocrisy to me. Like they want to say or mean "do this" but they try to couch it in some passive aggressive pleasantry. No thank you. I prefer clear communication.
- ozim 3y ago
  I am not native English speaker but for me ideal is: “I have x to be done, could you pick it up?”. If person says no or asks why I can elaborate or hear them out why and maybe I will do it on my own or delegate to another person. That sentence seems clear on what needs to be done and that it needs to be done, there is no “could, maybe” on the “do it” part and still gives other person control over the situation. For reasonable request and from boss position I don’t see how would it backfire. For unreasonable request or unreasonable person on receiving end - I guess there is no good way anyway :)
- spinningslate 3y ago
  great example that shows judgement, empathy and trust matter. Some people _want_ direct communication: they find fluff annoying, and don't take any insult or discomfort from it. Others find instruction challenging/insulting/intimidating and need softer interaction. A good leader can adjust their style to ensure the communication lands appropriately. Good leadership is largely about emotional intelligence.
  - athreyac8 3y ago
    According to me this is better than all "Will you take out the trash?"
- swayvil 3y ago
  How about, "Im going to have you...". Do you get that one? I hate that one. What's wrong with a nice, "Please foo?"
  - sgt 3y ago
NiloCK 3y ago
> Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if they are not actually talking to me myself. Can you say more about this? I use this phrase (or slight variations) all the time in both work and personal contexts. I had no idea it could be abrasive.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  Not the GP, but I read it as they prefer to be told the reason in addition to the request.
- somewhereoutth 3y ago
  It implies that the recipient should be pandering to your 'needs'. Better to say that it is the thing that has 'needs' - e.g. 'the rubbish needs to be taken out [before the dustbin people get here]'
  - Shaanie 3y ago
    Those are different, though. Your statement leaves ambiguity as to who will tend to the objects' needs. Sometimes the implication that you are the one expected to do it is clear, but far from always. People on the spectrum will probably struggle with that type of ambiguity too, which is worth keeping in mind.
- deberon 3y ago
  Not sure how abrasive this would actually be in a boss v employee scenario. However, hearing people order food this way makes me cringe.
- anymouse123456 3y ago
  Yeah, I also stiffen under, "I want you to..." In those cases I strongly prefer to use and hear, "Will you please..." There's something in it that feels like I don't exist. It's just an announcement of what the King or Queen wants. I'm not worthy of consideration in the request.
  - 3y ago
pmorici 3y ago
"find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame" An issue can run the gambit from "it's the system" to person X is not doing their job inline with the basic expectations. Subpar managers will always try and blame the system over individual accountability even when the problem is blatantly obvious because if the person is the problem then that necessitates an uncomfortable social interaction. Best to understand the facts of a given problem and not jump to any conclusions about it must be the "system". There has to be some individual responsibility in the work place.
- gmokki 3y ago
  Could it be that HR/management part of the system is then at fault if a person is kept in a role where they do harm. Most likely the system has been notified, but it has failed to react to the warnings.
  - pmorici 3y ago
    They certainly share in the blame if they know about problem employees and fail to act, the same is true for systemic problem under their control.
yterdy 3y ago
Having grown up with a father that did the opposite of all of these points, I recognize that this is also good parenting advice.
- freedomben 3y ago
  This is a huge parenting tip that I hope more people see. My dad was pretty good about explaining and showing why he was making rules or decisions, but I also spent a lot of time with friends who had parents who did not, so I've seen both sides of this. When your kids are young, it matters much less and in some cases not at all. But especially as they get older, and can start to exercise reason, you should always, always explain why you are making a decision or a rule. Even if the why is "because I get too hot and I like the thermostat being low" being honest is not only going to get more compliance, but it will build trust, and your kids will learn from your example. It really is good general life success advice.
ranit 3y ago
>> But more seriously: ... As often happens on HN, a comment worth more than the article. A concise and deep set of rules!
zoogeny 3y ago
> Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information. This is a lesson I learned and it now bothers me to no end if it ever happens to me. When decisions are made behind closed doors and then commands rain down from above then I feel rage. One thing I often say to people who I am responsible to lead is that they don't always have to agree but they need to understand. It is impossible for people to understand if information is kept from them. Even worse is if you try to fake compliance through faux-understanding using disinformation or by selectively editing information. Another thing I do is plainly recognize when someone is being asked to do something they won't like. Understanding works here, but so does some empathy. You can both understand why the unpleasant task is required to achieve the goal and acknowledge the fact that the person tasked with the duty has a right to their feelings.
onetimeuse92304 3y ago
Sometimes, there just is a need for "I need you to". This is literally called delegation. And as a boss, you need to learn to delegate and first thing about delegation is that the other person must know clearly something was delegated to them. Playing games around delegation only makes for worse experience. Creates noise, uncertainty and unnecessary failure. In the end, if I am hired and paid for 8h of my time, I expect my boss to tell me what she needs me to do within those 8h. Now, there are different ways to delegate. You can tell them "I need you to" 20 times a day pointing to small things or they can tell them "I need you to" on the first day of their job and then shut up about it. One of my first questions to my new bosses is literally "what do you need me to do", unless they have already told me. This is to avoid any confusion about what I am supposed to be doing. -- All this nice and softy stuff comes after you have the very basic business of managing team done. To be nice to your team you need to have a reason to have a team and then you need to have a team or at least collection of people who are assigned as your resources for you to delegate work to. -- There is a pyramid of needs on both employer and employee side. The employee needs to be paid first. Then treated nicely. Given the choice of being paid and treated nicely I would chose being treated nicely but that's just because I can go somewhere else to be paid and also have savings to not have to worry about it for a long time. If you don't have savings and don't have somewhere else to get paid, you care less about being treated nicely. Likewise, the employer needs work to be done first. Whether they care for their workforce or not, work is more important because if the work isn't taken care of then there is no chance they can take care for the team anyway. At least not long term.
- ruszki 3y ago
  You can also delegate to your boss. It’s not necessarily a one way flow. I do this all the time, and any competent employee whom I’ve ever seen did the same. You can delegate decisions to your boss.

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 …
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    I count being horribly disappointed as being surprised, just with the sign reversed. That's the risk you have to take as a leader. But, yeah, if it's a high stakes, do or die situation, do what needs to be done, even if that's something like getting 3 different groups to work on the problem independently, or something. Long term, if you have the right team, the positive surprises will more than cancel out the disappointments and the "meh" results. But, if it's a life or death type matter, fuck the long term -- you have to survive the short term before you start worrying about that. You can't manage or lead an organization that's at war the same way you would one that's at peace, and nor should you try.
  - yamakadi 3y ago
    Fully agree. Unfortunately, not everyone wants a general direction. A list of things to do and by when so they can plan out their day and only do what’s necessary yields baseline expected results and frees you to give more attention to team members who do want the freedom to choose their tasks and contribute to strategy, etc. Worst are the people who both don’t like the “I need you to …” task giving and do absolutely nothing when left alone or only given a goal and a direction. How do you deal with it if you are working on an industry where performance adjustments and feedback can take years and you can coast without doing anything four more than a couple of years?
  - roenxi 3y ago
    An advanced trick (not sure why, it seems easy enough) is to point someone in the general direction, wait a day, then sit down with them for 60 minutes and ask/talk to them about what they're planning on doing. Then you get the creativity without the surprise. Maybe even check in on them a few times as work goes on. The bad engineering managers I've seen seem to suffer from anthropophobia when they aren't giving orders in a meeting room.

1letterunixname 3y ago

Yes. Good bosses do the shitty and awkward tasks for anyone else to do. When a specific task absolutely needs to be done, the boss asks for volunteers, delegates, or does it themselves in that order. The era of militarist corporations dictating downward, monopolizing information like it's some fucking government intelligence agency, and employees bending the knee to inflated egos upward is over. Bosses now are organizational and individual employee facilitators of said employees getting shit done and improvements thereof. Laying out what milestones need to get done and helpful bits to get there without micromanaging. Checking in and asking questions if there are any blocking items is okay. Open-mindedness, dispassionate failure analysis, and 360 feedback are important to maintain professionalism and growth.

gvurrdon 3y ago

All good stuff, indeed. > 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. Definitely. I'd like to see a lot more of that, but the default often seems to be blame. I recall a system at a place I worked where the stakeholders (native or skilled non-native English speakers) would produce requirements by holding meetings with the developer (much less skilled non-native speaker), dictate what they wanted, and have the developer take notes (which the stakeholders would not check) then immediately implement the software. When the resulting software was built incorrectly they would blame the developer for incompetence, and hold another meeting.

sspiff 3y ago

In my personal experience, I prefer people saying "I need you to" over "If you could just". The "nice" corner of the chart simply screams hypocrisy to me. Like they want to say or mean "do this" but they try to couch it in some passive aggressive pleasantry. No thank you. I prefer clear communication.

ozim 3y ago
I am not native English speaker but for me ideal is: “I have x to be done, could you pick it up?”. If person says no or asks why I can elaborate or hear them out why and maybe I will do it on my own or delegate to another person. That sentence seems clear on what needs to be done and that it needs to be done, there is no “could, maybe” on the “do it” part and still gives other person control over the situation. For reasonable request and from boss position I don’t see how would it backfire. For unreasonable request or unreasonable person on receiving end - I guess there is no good way anyway :)
spinningslate 3y ago
great example that shows judgement, empathy and trust matter. Some people _want_ direct communication: they find fluff annoying, and don't take any insult or discomfort from it. Others find instruction challenging/insulting/intimidating and need softer interaction. A good leader can adjust their style to ensure the communication lands appropriately. Good leadership is largely about emotional intelligence.
- athreyac8 3y ago
  According to me this is better than all "Will you take out the trash?"
swayvil 3y ago
How about, "Im going to have you...". Do you get that one? I hate that one. What's wrong with a nice, "Please foo?"
- sgt 3y ago

NiloCK 3y ago

> Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if they are not actually talking to me myself. Can you say more about this? I use this phrase (or slight variations) all the time in both work and personal contexts. I had no idea it could be abrasive.

mathgeek 3y ago
Not the GP, but I read it as they prefer to be told the reason in addition to the request.
somewhereoutth 3y ago
It implies that the recipient should be pandering to your 'needs'. Better to say that it is the thing that has 'needs' - e.g. 'the rubbish needs to be taken out [before the dustbin people get here]'
- Shaanie 3y ago
  Those are different, though. Your statement leaves ambiguity as to who will tend to the objects' needs. Sometimes the implication that you are the one expected to do it is clear, but far from always. People on the spectrum will probably struggle with that type of ambiguity too, which is worth keeping in mind.
deberon 3y ago
Not sure how abrasive this would actually be in a boss v employee scenario. However, hearing people order food this way makes me cringe.
anymouse123456 3y ago
Yeah, I also stiffen under, "I want you to..." In those cases I strongly prefer to use and hear, "Will you please..." There's something in it that feels like I don't exist. It's just an announcement of what the King or Queen wants. I'm not worthy of consideration in the request.
- 3y ago

pmorici 3y ago

"find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame" An issue can run the gambit from "it's the system" to person X is not doing their job inline with the basic expectations. Subpar managers will always try and blame the system over individual accountability even when the problem is blatantly obvious because if the person is the problem then that necessitates an uncomfortable social interaction. Best to understand the facts of a given problem and not jump to any conclusions about it must be the "system". There has to be some individual responsibility in the work place.

gmokki 3y ago
Could it be that HR/management part of the system is then at fault if a person is kept in a role where they do harm. Most likely the system has been notified, but it has failed to react to the warnings.
- pmorici 3y ago
  They certainly share in the blame if they know about problem employees and fail to act, the same is true for systemic problem under their control.

yterdy 3y ago

Having grown up with a father that did the opposite of all of these points, I recognize that this is also good parenting advice.

freedomben 3y ago
This is a huge parenting tip that I hope more people see. My dad was pretty good about explaining and showing why he was making rules or decisions, but I also spent a lot of time with friends who had parents who did not, so I've seen both sides of this. When your kids are young, it matters much less and in some cases not at all. But especially as they get older, and can start to exercise reason, you should always, always explain why you are making a decision or a rule. Even if the why is "because I get too hot and I like the thermostat being low" being honest is not only going to get more compliance, but it will build trust, and your kids will learn from your example. It really is good general life success advice.

ranit 3y ago

>> But more seriously: ... As often happens on HN, a comment worth more than the article. A concise and deep set of rules!

zoogeny 3y ago

> Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information. This is a lesson I learned and it now bothers me to no end if it ever happens to me. When decisions are made behind closed doors and then commands rain down from above then I feel rage. One thing I often say to people who I am responsible to lead is that they don't always have to agree but they need to understand. It is impossible for people to understand if information is kept from them. Even worse is if you try to fake compliance through faux-understanding using disinformation or by selectively editing information. Another thing I do is plainly recognize when someone is being asked to do something they won't like. Understanding works here, but so does some empathy. You can both understand why the unpleasant task is required to achieve the goal and acknowledge the fact that the person tasked with the duty has a right to their feelings.

onetimeuse92304 3y ago

Sometimes, there just is a need for "I need you to". This is literally called delegation. And as a boss, you need to learn to delegate and first thing about delegation is that the other person must know clearly something was delegated to them. Playing games around delegation only makes for worse experience. Creates noise, uncertainty and unnecessary failure. In the end, if I am hired and paid for 8h of my time, I expect my boss to tell me what she needs me to do within those 8h. Now, there are different ways to delegate. You can tell them "I need you to" 20 times a day pointing to small things or they can tell them "I need you to" on the first day of their job and then shut up about it. One of my first questions to my new bosses is literally "what do you need me to do", unless they have already told me. This is to avoid any confusion about what I am supposed to be doing. -- All this nice and softy stuff comes after you have the very basic business of managing team done. To be nice to your team you need to have a reason to have a team and then you need to have a team or at least collection of people who are assigned as your resources for you to delegate work to. -- There is a pyramid of needs on both employer and employee side. The employee needs to be paid first. Then treated nicely. Given the choice of being paid and treated nicely I would chose being treated nicely but that's just because I can go somewhere else to be paid and also have savings to not have to worry about it for a long time. If you don't have savings and don't have somewhere else to get paid, you care less about being treated nicely. Likewise, the employer needs work to be done first. Whether they care for their workforce or not, work is more important because if the work isn't taken care of then there is no chance they can take care for the team anyway. At least not long term.

ruszki 3y ago
You can also delegate to your boss. It’s not necessarily a one way flow. I do this all the time, and any competent employee whom I’ve ever seen did the same. You can delegate decisions to your boss.