3 ms·

You raise a really interesting point here, and it seems there may be an opportunism vs principles dynamic at play. Without debating the orthogonality of that a

by wamatt 14y ago

You raise a really interesting point here, and it seems there may be an opportunism vs principles dynamic at play. Without debating the orthogonality of that assumption, (because it really won't change the overall point), let me begin by saying, most if not all humans I've encountered, have varying levels of principles and opportunism, but we are not made equal (CF fallacy of gray). >I won't answer yes or no to a commitment but instead say "I'll do my best." I am one of those, that have traditionally found that statement slightly annoying, especially in a business context. It just seems slippery. What does "doing your 'best' mean? Are you truly going to do your very best and drop everything to fulfill the request? I think not. Hence the precision one is aiming for, does not seem like an improvement on the original brevity of the yes/no. Furthermore it could give one an opportunity to flake and blame the environment, versus sticking to one's word.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
"I am one of those that have traditionally found that annoying, especially in a business context. I seems slippery. What does "doing you 'best' mean? Are you truly going to do your very best and drop everything to fulfill the request? I think not. Hence the precision one is aiming for, does not seem like an improvement on the original brevity of the yes/no." I completely understand this response, I actually really do mean I will do everything I possibly can to meet this obligation, but also recognize my commitment is not equivalent to other commitments by people who might use the same phrase. I find myself stuck in this dilemma: 1) I can say "no" which cuts off the conversation and makes me appear unsupportive. 2) I can say "No, I don't think I will be able to." Which at least invites the requestor to inquire further. 3) I can say "I'll do my best" which accurately conveys my personal intent but sounds weak to the recipient. 4) I can say "Sure, I can probably do that" where I signal that my intent is yes but I can see issues which may interfere with my execution. 5) I can say "Sure" and 'bet on the come' as they say in Vegas which means that if things outside of my control happen in the best possible way I'll be able to fulfill the obligation, and if they don't I'll fail at filling the obligation and let you down. I have observed that option 5 is the normal usage. It results in experiences like the one Bruce had where there are lots of commitments and not necessarily a lot of follow through. And at low "value" in terms of the commitment/cost the discussion of how much trust is impacted is interesting. I've also observed that people in management that always say "yes" even if they only deliver a smaller percentage of the time on their commitments are more successful (in terms of raises, promotions etc) than people who actually only commit to things they actually think they can do[1]. So as a success strategy always saying yes, regardless of your understanding seems like a winning strategy. I personally can't do that though, I'm sure it has hindered my career :-). [1] There is also a very real thing that you can often do more than you think you can, so sometimes over-comitting gets you to a higher level of efficiency. It still annoys me when someone signs up to do something that I know for a fact they won't be able to deliver, and they get full credit for the signup anyway.

by wamatt 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

"I am one of those that have traditionally found that annoying, especially in a business context. I seems slippery. What does "doing you 'best' mean? Are you truly going to do your very best and drop everything to fulfill the request? I think not. Hence the precision one is aiming for, does not seem like an improvement on the original brevity of the yes/no." I completely understand this response, I actually really do mean I will do everything I possibly can to meet this obligation, but also recognize my commitment is not equivalent to other commitments by people who might use the same phrase. I find myself stuck in this dilemma: 1) I can say "no" which cuts off the conversation and makes me appear unsupportive. 2) I can say "No, I don't think I will be able to." Which at least invites the requestor to inquire further. 3) I can say "I'll do my best" which accurately conveys my personal intent but sounds weak to the recipient. 4) I can say "Sure, I can probably do that" where I signal that my intent is yes but I can see issues which may interfere with my execution. 5) I can say "Sure" and 'bet on the come' as they say in Vegas which means that if things outside of my control happen in the best possible way I'll be able to fulfill the obligation, and if they don't I'll fail at filling the obligation and let you down. I have observed that option 5 is the normal usage. It results in experiences like the one Bruce had where there are lots of commitments and not necessarily a lot of follow through. And at low "value" in terms of the commitment/cost the discussion of how much trust is impacted is interesting. I've also observed that people in management that always say "yes" even if they only deliver a smaller percentage of the time on their commitments are more successful (in terms of raises, promotions etc) than people who actually only commit to things they actually think they can do[1]. So as a success strategy always saying yes, regardless of your understanding seems like a winning strategy. I personally can't do that though, I'm sure it has hindered my career :-). [1] There is also a very real thing that you can often do more than you think you can, so sometimes over-comitting gets you to a higher level of efficiency. It still annoys me when someone signs up to do something that I know for a fact they won't be able to deliver, and they get full credit for the signup anyway.