How to professionally say
howtoprofessionallysay.akashrajpurohit.com
howtoprofessionallysay.akashrajpurohit.com
I like the idea of giving people some help expressing themselves at work. You might be interested to learn about the Power Distance Index, and the body of work on PDI and work culture.
You’ll see if you read the comments here that some people are like “the alternatives are bullshit corporate speak and infuriate me”, and some are like “yes, at last, a way to help people be more polite / better communicators”. There’s a smattering of “this is passive aggressive” thrown in.
One of the broad pitches PDI at work types make is that the lower the PDI, the more direct communications are preferred; the higher, the more ‘diplomatic’ the communications are preferred. My vibe on your list is that it’s just a tad more diplomatic than Silicon Valley wants to be, hence the slight negative ‘passive aggressive’ reactions.
Some of the lowest PDI countries in the world are Israel, and many Northern European countries, and it fits my experience that in those places additional respect is given for bluntness - as Jan Maas in Ted Lasso says “I’m not rude, I’m Dutch.” As a broad stereotype using the alternate wordings you give would be a sign you are not someone to be respected in that environment.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s PDI is high, and I would bet that some of your alternate list there would still be much too rude; just a guess, I haven’t worked in Saudi.
Anyway, thanks again for this; if you stay interested, you might consider reworking this into different ‘cultural norms’ lists to help people acclimate / go both ways; at that point, I think it would be a very broadly useful resource.
The basic intent of the project was to curate a list of things what you might feel like saying vs how you can say it (more professionally I guess)
Would be happy to see how the data can be improved which can be better suited for majority of people.
From there, I was originally imagining the site could use a slider to cycle back and forth through wordings, but the associative and comparative value of just displaying them all simultaneously in columns under each heading is probably worth the tight information density.
Maybe also alter the site (now, while trending!) to indicate you're looking for additional data (for both the situation and diplomacy-level dimensions) - the GitHub link at the bottom is a tiny bit... I have to go looking for it myself, which is very good, but you might be able to passively collect that bit more low hanging fruit by making it more of a (polite :D) call to action.
If you add the specific culture / region you are targeting this at, it could already mitigate that issue.
As vassanas points out, the phrases you suggest would work to your disadvantage in more confrontational cultures, because you will be perceived as bullshitting and beating around the bush, but not as a serious contributer one should listen to.
Even I as a New Yorker had to acclimate to that level of bluntness.
You've just finished your report, which happens to absolutely awful in every way. You send copies to each of your colleagues and later today, talk to each of them about their thoughts.
American colleague: Good job! Excellent! Great piece of work!
English colleague: Some great material in here. A few parts might benefit from a rewrite, but its a great start.
French colleague: I think we can probably use a lot of this, but there are substantial parts that really need rewriting.
German colleague: This is pretty terrible. A few parts are ok, perhaps, but it needs a complete rewrite.
Israeli colleague: This is shit. We'll get someone else to do it.
One word Danes (and other N.Es) often get in trouble for is 'fuck'. In Denmark it is no problem to use this in many business meetings but will often spell trouble when we participate in a meeting with people from USA. We simply do not see using it as something to avoid.
(and pupils in Denmark will absolutely not be sent to headmaster or parents contacted if they use it. At most it will be a glance from the teacher if they use it too much).
(Is there even a clear distinction between "cultural" and "linguistic"?)
https://interviews.televisionacademy.com/news/the-seven-dirt...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
(Aside, but I don't think Carlin ever credited Lenny Bruce:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenny_Bruce#Obscenity_arrests
Lenny Bruce's 1962 "Dirty Words" album is on Spotify and Apple Music; worth a listen if you've never heard it.)
Jackson's use of fuck is typically to add emphasis to a statement, and actually, I think he uses "motherfucker" a lot more than bare fuck[1], but in any case, fuck has different meanings depending upon context. Consider: Oh fuck. Fuck off. Fuck you. I'm fucked. Hey lady, you wanna fuck?[2] This fucking bug. Let's get the fuck outta here.
It's an adaptable word but still bleeped on the air in 2022. At the same time, it's okay to allude to it on primetime TV as in: "Holy mother forking shirt balls!"
[1]: https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/06/samuel-l-jackso...
The other problem is who are these people imposing those rules on us? Is this the thought police who hide behind the anonymity of public outrage and public morals but typically work for media outlets as editors, or legislators or law enforcement and judiciary? Are they an anagram of Non Technical Computer Users?
Not using it in vain is one of the ten commandments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_take_the_name_o...
The "these people" are us, and I don't believe there's actually a formal list of banned words. Rather, Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast[1].
It's then up to us, the public, to work out whether content falls into one of these categories. NBC could, for example, choose not to bleep fuck during a daytime podcast. That would probably lead to a bunch of complaints to the FCC. The FCC would then fine NBC, and I gather, ultimately could revoke NBC's broadcasting license.
What's offensive changes over time[1]. Maybe fuck won't be seen as offensive some day, and then networks will be free to broadcast it over the air because no one complains to the FCC about it.
[1]: https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code
Religion has only been around for about 2000-3000 years, and if it was banned so we couldnt utter the word god anymore, I wonder how long it would take for the epigenetics to work out of the gene pool.
In todays world, I have a hunch most kids have learnt to swear by the time they start primary school, so why the mental bondage to use a euphemism and to have an excuse to beat a kind mentally and/or physically for saying it?
Would it really bring that much chaos to the world, considering the psychological idea that something banned or illicit is more highly treasured?
About 50,000 years at least:
See also "G-d"
As to the cognitive dissonance angle, for having racist thoughts regarding a non euphemism, there is nothing quite like cognitive dissonance to mess people up, but what I find interesting about it is how it affects us as our chemistry changes, ie we age, we get more intelligent, we get wise, so then we start employing innuendo to avoid the legal and societal constraints, and there is another subsection of society which does innuendo brilliantly.
In the 00sKFC tried to market their chicken as a pro health Atkins type food with none other than Jason Alexander. That one was so bad that even the fucking ad industry criticized it. Marketing the unhealthiest of fast food as somewhat healthy is not a new thing.
Before that, it was mostly used as decoration, in the US.
It really wasn't until the Double Down era that the absurdity of KFC was apparent to everyone.
It's not as high as Spinach or Almonds, but it's still in the top ten.
So, maybe they need to be sued by someone who has had kidney stones, before they reconsider that idea, or at least required to put a huge warning on that item?
You can go online or to a drug store and buy wild lettuce and/or lettuce extract and take it for pain or inflammation.
Most plants that we class as food have been domesticated to avoid some of the wild experiences that might get documented on Erowid.org but in the past were explained away as religious experiences and documented as such.
Plants, and how our gut bacteria interact with them - or not - are one of the most interesting things i can think of.
Well if you want a laugh then, try some L-Tryptophan, a few grams a day but you can do more spread out over the day.
You gut bacteria will turn it into serotonin and you'll know why serotonin is found in the outer shell of seeds. Lets just say it can give you a toilet experience much like having a hot spicy curry, you see serotonin irritates the gut in animals so the seeds get pooped out pretty much in tact so the plants can spread around, but serotonin can cause some tissues to sting enormously which is why curry can also sting.
Pepper has something in it called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piperidine which has a mild amnesiac effect https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15878668/ so dont use too much pepper on your meal otherwise you might forget what you had eaten!
Even the “cool” elderly people I know stopped listening to the radio and broadcast TV years ago. Nowadays, everything is Podcasts, Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, etc. and none of them censor “fuck”. Our culture is generally becoming a lot more open and accepting when it comes to the use of words like “fuck” and “shit”, however words like “cunt” are still fairly taboo.
From my perspective, broadcast TV and radio are simply a measure of how many Americans are hanging onto an antiquated culture, and I’m sure there’s significant overlap between “people who listen to broadcast” and “people who still find ‘fuck’ offensive”, and it’s likely no longer just a function of age.
Thanks for sharing the Lenny Bruce but, I had no idea that inspired Carlin!
90% of the freemium streaming services are the same, and i'll include SiriusXM as well.
That all being said, I personally consider sectioning off parts of the language (colorful or whatever) a net positive. In my opinion, disallowing words that have "universal meaning" forces children (and people who want to run for office, be an instructor, whatever) to find better and more descriptive ways to express themselves. The alternative, as an extreme, would be two utterances: "Fuck yes!" for good things, and "aw, fuck!" for bad things.
All in favor say fuck yes
I had never considered that "Damnit" and "Jesus Christ" could be misconstrued as the names of two children.
I almost passed out laughing so hard at that album.
Sometime later, I discovered his Iron Butterfly album, which also changed my world.
then you should go and visit a therapist.
:)
EDIT: I also have my name attached to my words here and in most places on the internet, so I'm more mindful of how things said here can be read in other contexts where certain words are more taboo.
Rightfully so. Feel free to disregard.
Some people are very desensitized to sweating online, usually anonymously. Not wanting to doesn't merit psychiatric help.
All that to say there are often platform-specific norms about these things and I rarely see curse words on here.
EDIT: Also, thank you for your words.
Even my C-Level guys are saying this (banking)
Do not understan til today, why for an american this word is that problematic....
There are plenty of less severe words in english that can be used, such as "bloody" or "damn" which roughly equate to how those who speak english as a second language use "fuck"
In any case, none of the cats I’ve meowed at over the years have ever seemed too offended - perhaps I’ve just been lucky. Barking at dogs has been a totally different story, though…
I've always assumed it is the same with meowing at cats: "we appreciate your effort. At least you didn't shit in our litter box like Jerry"
Funny enough, our second cat learned the local dialect after joining the family. I guess the moral here is to just gauge the room and hope for something fishy to come out of the cabinet.
I'm an anglophone - en_GB.
The word fuck has been adopted by pretty much the world as a naughty expletive that generally doesn't cause complete outrage but is expressive enough to be generally outside normal and polite conversation. I think it is a triumph of people getting something right: As a complex species with disparate concepts and languages, we have managed to pick a single word to cover quite a few concepts and situations. Fuck's time has come (ooerr).
To be honest, I'd like to be able to swear in a foreign language (I can manage German and French so far but without much enthusiasm). Please feel free to reply with your finest swearing and put downs.
The rest of the world seems to have never got the memo about the affectionate uses of the word cunt.
How about strange?
I binge-watched all of Farscape in under a month during college over a decade ago, and "frell" (usually in the form "frelling ____") seems to have become a permanent part of my vocabulary. The word is a 1:1 translation of every meaning of "fuck", used very liberally in the series.
There's a bunch more swears and work-inappropriate sayings they also leave "untranslated", but "frell" was probably the most used.
Feck is a bit more intriguing. I think feck really means the same as fuck but it is the Irish sticking it to the English and turning a rude word into a simple expletive that Mummy can use. If so - good job. I would love to hear some thoughts about this from someone from the Isle.
However, as Hollywood managed to promote 'fuck' as a generic expletive with no meaning, these are actually less polite, as they emphasis the meaning that was gone.
I also wonder why people write f*ck. If you want to swear, do it. If you want to be polite, don't do it. If a censoring system won't let you use fuck, be more creative. F*ck with a star just seems to say you're a pushover.
Reminds me of a slide[1] DHH did at a Rails conference presentation.
I'm now furiously Googling this and apparently it's part of a broader framework called cultural dimensions theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimens...
People never schedule meetings, they just ask for your phone number and call whether it’s appropriate for them. They interrupt you in the meetings, tell your solution is bad.
It may sound refreshing on paper, but honestly you feel treated like a low-skilled worker in a laundry or a kitchen. I’m not a Westerner, but I do come from a background of working with an English company and the difference in respect to boundaries and time is night and day.
I felt like being at a bazaar where a stranger talks to you like a person they know all their life. Which probably sounds appealing for people tired of Western sugarcoating and is probably great at a party when drinks flow freely. But at workspace it just feels unprofessional and disrespectful.
Local friends explained to me that this is cultural. Workplace in Israel is catered to locals and they rarely hire outsiders or expats. People have very short distance, they serve in army together, go to parties together, hide from bombings together. So hierarchy and workspace mannerisms make little sense in that context.
Offensiveness just for the sake of being offensive and trying to make other people feel powerless around you, that kind of thing I would not appreciate.
Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between these two.
Now, scheduling, I'm not quite as bad as the Germans, but I do require that stuff get put on the calendar, and you make a really strong effort to hold to that schedule.
If you think you can just call me whenever you want, then you can just fuck off. Not even my wife can just call me whenever she wants. Fortunately, she knows this.
The explanation I got was that no one has time to beat around the bush since every single day might be your last.
That was 30 years ago when things where a lot less safe than it is now.
The problem is actually knowing your audience (as individuals) well enough to assess how they will interpret your words.
Can you assume that all Saudi's, for instance, will react well to the somewhat cloying language suggested by the OP's post? I think not. But if you don't personally know the audience it's also tricky to know what each culture's acceptably polite "default" is.
I've gotten myself into some etiquette faux-pas in the past by using sarcasm and irreverent humor around Chinese colleagues. My previous experience with Chinese folks had been limited to grad school and I had just (wrongly) assumed that such communication was OK as the default.
The minimum of polite language is higher. Profanity can get you in trouble like getting a written warning, and graphic profanity can land you in handcuffs, like insulting someone's mother. Saying son of a bitch is a misdemeanor.
My experience in big corps is that the PDI is high but the power isn't so concerned with neutral formal phrasing. Phrasing in Saudi culture can be shockingly informal even at the highest level, since open tribal gatherings were the highest authority in the land until recently. The King and Princes still run open tribal gatherings where citizens can speak informally. Corporate speak is new and still seen as intrusive to how we do business.
How PDI would express itself would be preserving face, I guess. You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others.
Startups are not like that at all. They're young, irreverent, and passionate. The young people really express themselves in those spaces with barely any hint of the old school social expectations. Guys and gals taking smoke breaks together and focusing on getting the job done.
When you talk of preserving face:
> You can't contradict superiors or even coworkers too openly and directly, you can't openly disrespect or be irreverent. All possibly disruptive feedback must be private or you're bringing shame to yourself and others.
Are you saying that you're not allowed to express anger to superiors or coworkers in public? Is it the way it's said, the emotion behind it, or something else that seems to matter the most?
Stick to the facts.
EDIT: Another example: "I feel quite angry right now and it probably has less to do with what you did and more to do with the fact that I haven't eaten yet. So before we do my performance review, could we get lunch so I might be in a better mood to hear it?"
I think that would be a way to express anger connected to facts. Do you think that is still something people should keep to themselves?
It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous.
It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public.
Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder.
So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.
> I'll give more details, but keep in mind Saudi society's norms are in massive flux. Even specifically the things I'm saying are changing. The new nationalism is bringing down a lot of old hierarchies. This might be more useful to understand the past than the future at this point.
I appreciate you saying this.
> It's not specifically the way it's said because like I said informal speech is accepted at all level. I meant that the act of embarrassing others is very scandalous.
Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result?
> It's a concept called الستر (the veil or the cover) which has a high place in both the faith and the culture. Hide your own flaws, helps others hide their flaws, and if you see another's flaw don't look too closely. You could translate it to shame but it doesn't have the inner shame or guilt connotation. It's more about conducting yourself in public.
I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws but a more general "don't share too much about one's own or another's internal/private life with strangers," because, I would think it would be hard to a priori determine what is considered a flaw or not. Would this concept equally apply to publicly sharing, for example, one's biggest dreams and hopes as well?
Also, I've tried to search the internet for الستر but am struggling to find any links. Will you share some with me so I can learn more about it?
> Another common concept is قطع الأعناق و لا قطع الأرزاق (rather cut necks than cut livelihoods) which puts affecting people's livelihoods on the same level as murder.
Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase. I've read a lot about how excommunication historically could equal death, as being kicked out of the human group doesn't bode well for surviving in the wild. Yet, I think it still applies today in different ways, as being ostracized or losing one's job can really wreak havoc on our emotional lives, leading to suicide, murder, and many other mortal results.
I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia, is it tarnished throughout? In other words, how quickly and pervasively do you think gossip spreads?
I'm not trying to single out Saudi Arabia, more so to try to understand if it has that small-town feel, where if one person hears something, everyone will hear it, or more like a NYC, where a person could reinvent themselves in some way.
Also, how easy/difficult would you say it is to choose a new career/profession?
> So if you criticize openly, and jeopridize someone's career, it probably won't matter whether you're right or wrong. You're violating many social contracts and there will be social consequences. The preferred way would be to approach someone privately, tell them what you think, and even better, provide a solution that includes a cover story for why things weren't done correctly in the first place.
I imagine this approach also works pretty well in the US (where I'm at). I think private 1-on-1 conflict resolution can be much easier than public 1-on-1 resolution, as in public, there are so many other people watching and listening and reacting in different ways.
When I think of living in a place (again, not just Saudi Arabia, I'm talking of the dynamic which I think happen in many places) where people are constantly giving cover stories, I imagine I would start to distrust a lot of what people say. Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed?
I'm so grateful for you writing this and helping me reflect more, thank you.
> Ah, so then it's less about the delivery and more about the result?
Yes it's definitely about the result. The politeness of something is measured by the embarrassment it caused.
> I'm curious if this applies to not just flaws
So the origin of الستر is the Islamic command to conceal the sins of a Muslim, unless they're a known repeat offender. Here's an article about that: https://www.arabnews.com/news/480916#:~:text=If%20someone%20... So in Islam it's always worse to sin in public than to sin in private. This also leads to non-Saudis misunderstanding about rule of law and the penal code, because the punishment for drinking alcohol was whipping, but what it doesn't say is that no one was ever caught privately drinking alcohol at their own home. They get caught smuggling, producing, with alcohol in their car, at a large party, or publicly drunk. It is very rare for a victimless private crime to ever be investigated, and bringing it to public is itself a sin. You can apply that to apostasy, drinking, sex, homosexuality, etc.
So that's the Islamic origin, which is taught to grade schoolers. How it presents itself in culture is a lot more general. It's concealment of all flaws. So if you tell someone a story that makes you sound laughable, you might say استر علي (conceal me) which calls on this religious and cultural value to conceal flaws and therefore not retell this story. Or you called in sick and you coworker saw you taking a trip, etc. As far as what constitutes a flaw, it's anything embarrassing or puts you in a bad light. It could be anything.
I don't believe it extends to sharing any and all information. It's not a general tight-lipness. So it wouldn't apply at all to dreams and hopes, unless there's something specifically bad about them.
> Ah, yeah, I wonder about the etymology of that phrase.
It's not a religious text, but it's very popular to reinforces a religious and cultural value. It's also not literal in its comparison. It's an exaggeration to show how sacred livelihoods are. And in a sense there is a belief that they are sacred. Muslims believe livelihood (رزق) is granted by God, and so interfering with that is an ugly crime.
It present itself in a very funny way in today's world. You go to a small town baker's Instagram page, and then a customer would write a negative comment about stale goods or high prices, and the comments would gang up on the customer rather than the business! They would use that specific phrase, advise them to go private, if you don't like it don't buy, and so on.
> I'm curious, if one's reputation is tarnished in a part of Saudi Arabia
Yes reputation is very important. I don't have a concise description for it, but here's an example. If you're marrying outside of your tribe/community and proposing to "strangers", a lot of asking around will happen. Providing references is common. The bride's father will want to talk to your friends, your boss, and anyone in your circle. Before they ask them about you, they will remind them of integrity and honor, and tell them he's asking for his precious daughter, "imagine if he was marrying your sister or daughter would you accept him", and so on. People whose reputations are ruined, for example a man who's a known drunk or criminal, might not be able to marry any Saudi woman.
This kind of social investigation also happens for jobs to a lesser extent. What people say will be more important than the CV. It's commonly known that when you're asked such questions for a job seeker or marriage suitor, that the truth is a matter of integrity and honor, rather than concealment. After all they're asking in private.
In that sense it's not gossip. It's commonly practiced and formal. Gossip, of course still happens, but also seen as a sin against the value of concealment.
Although this all happens, I can say I don't know of anyone who's completely locked out of an industry that way, not for a small thing. I heard of a man who forged a contract at work once, and he got fired and became completely unhirable. He had to leave the country. But that case seemed exceptionally sensitive. Livelihood will always be more important than reputation.
Barring such glaring ethical issues, I think switching careers is not too difficult. The actual obstacle is that people kind of pigeon-hole you into your major/job like "you studied computer science we can't fund your agricultural business" kind of thing.
> Do you think that most people 1) see through the cover stories and 2) get annoyed with hearing cover stories all the time but feel afraid to say they feel annoyed?
It can be difficult when accountability is important. Everything can be systemized these days and information is abundant. I imagine it was extremely difficult in the past when your entire workforce colludes to hide their flaws, and the leadership colludes to hide the organization's flaws, and so on. But unless uncovering the cover story is of practical importance, you're expected to let it go.
Separately, criticizing privately by default is simply a good foundational habit to adopt. (Speaking generally. I happen to be a US-American.)
Good kids caught by police doing dumb things being let go to cover for them, backstabbing and blackmail might hurt the person doing it more than the target, you feel safer because even your superiors cover for you, and so on.
But the incompetent, the lazy, the corrupt also abuse an environment where accountability is flexible. While a normal person with a conscience will appreciate the cover when they slip up, it's very hard to get rid of the people you need to get rid of. Everyone knows they're lazy but they keep their job to avoid scandal and cruelty.
For example, if a coworker is obviously and visibly missing, their teammates will still scratch their heads if asked about them. "I might have seen them. They're around." Saying they didn't come today when asked, out in the open, is as rude as it gets.
This is rarely understood by those in power though, they would see it only as disrespect rather than the only way to regain some small amount of power.
It's also worth thinking about not just broad strokes societal culture at a national level, but also family culture, like the metafilter post[5] about guess vs ask cultures explains, some feel comfortable asking for anything leaving the responder to say no (putting the load from the requester to the requested) while others guess and try to predict and will only ask when they know it will likely be a positive response (putting the load on the requester instead of the requested). Ask culture is probably more healthy, but despite that the real problems are when the two clash.
[1] Gossip as Revenge of the Powerless - https://aeon.co/ideas/gossip-was-a-powerful-tool-for-the-pow... [2] Humor as a Serious Strategy of Nonviolent Resistance to Oppression - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-0130... [3] Follower sarcasm reduces leader overpay by increasing accountability - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002210312... [4] Powerlessness Corrupts - leads to sabotage - https://hbr.org/2010/07/column-powerlessness-corrupts [5] Ask & Guess Culture - https://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-bet...
I think that's another way we communicate and often is even more so a way to avoid the possibility of being rejected. If I ask, you can say no. If I guess, then I can maybe figure out if you say no before you actually do so you don't have to. If I tell you, then there's not much way for you to say no, or if you do, then it is a clear violation of the agreement.
I think this happens with some people who are in military culture or other top-down hierarchies where there seems to be a "Tell culture" (I don't like labeling cultures too much with such identity descriptors because I think it can lock them into existence). And I think that can be one of the hardest things for people trying to reintegrate as veterans, to go from telling people what to do and being told what to do to telling your 5-year-old what to do and they say no...and then having to learn to guess or even ask...or more deep down, opening up first and then asking, maybe the most emotionally raw version.
There is also the difference from types of communication, i.e. face-to-face or email or slack.
There is also the difference from the audience, i.e. who are you talking to, coworkers or clients.
There is even individual differences, i.e. different people will perceive differently, simply because their personalities.
It really adds little to the conversation. It's just an IDF inheritance that should be eradicated.
How you would describe the communication style within the IDF?
I guess it also depends on what unit you are in, there is likely a very big difference between fighting units (infantry, armor, artillery) with which I'm more familiar and the back-office units.
So when the social consequences shift for an individual who is moved to a new setting, then the PDI for that individual will shift hard. Hence you find this working abroad and you've adapted your communication style. But we can do thought experiments on the PDI for the following situations:
- Arab talking to Israeli, inside Israel vs inside home country - Israeli outside Israel talking to Jewish vs non-Jewish person - Consumer Salesperson (small commission product, very frequent close opportunities) vs Enterprise Salesperson (large commission product, lots of confirmation pre-close meetings across org, leading to the final sale)
I think in each case the PDI will correlate with the negative consequences for the speaker speaking out of turn, once they become habituated to the situation of course.
http://ask.metafilter.com/55153/Whats-the-middle-ground-betw...
Implies that they won't be able to see each other unless the host allows the guest to stay with them. Of course, this only works as a threat if the guest assumes the host wants their company in the first place. I don't find it to be a threat because the guest would only be withholding something the host doesn't want in the first place. That said, changing one word makes a big difference:
"I hope this works out /and/ we can see each other!"
This way seeing each other is disconnected from the hosting.
FWIW I don't find the request rude in the first place. The asker doesn't know she's making the request of someone who doesn't like her. Jeff seems offended that the woman mentioned his name ("I don't even know this woman.") But to me, that's just being polite as opposed to leaving him out entirely or referring to him generally (i.e. "you and your husband").
"I hope this works out /so/ we can see each other!"
It's not physically threatening, but this makes a strong implication that the relationship will be potentially damaged by refusing to comply with the request. Consider this alternative, "I hope this works out. It would be great to catch up either way!" This makes it clear that the relationship will not be harmed if this doesn't work out.
Yes, I am reading into things, and I was raised as a Guesser but consider myself bilingual. IMO being an Asker is fine, but if you hold the relationship hostage, it's Demanding, not Asking.
That is to say, I interpret this:
"I hope this works out so we can see each other!"
As this:
"I hope this works out because I would like to see you and by living under the same roof for a short time we will be able to see each other!"
I have to say, though, that this might be dependent on my relationship with the person. If I like them, I'm more likely to have the generous interpretation of this phrase.
Context is I’ve seen enough bad behavior online that I believe it is our responsibility to choose our words with intention.
We can talk about what oughta be all day long; and that's a fun and important conversation of its own; but should not be confused with what is -- at my current client/project, you definitely need to learn the language if you want to be successful. And not in a "BS-y management successful", I mean get anything done including architecture and development. C'est la vie!
(FWIW, after decades of complaining and moaning, I decided to approach people / projects / relationships with at least a fraction of analytical mindset and effort that I take to technical problems. It's been both rewarding and effective and fascinating, and dear gawd I wish I paid attention to it earlier rather than spending all that time moaning and complaining. Again, we can have a discussion about how ideal world should be, and we can work toward changing it, but it absolutely has to start with actually understanding it. I'll take a look at the PDI, anything that helps understand the mechanics of work relationships is beneficial - thx! :)
because its the same people right? like its just a branch from the same culture due to very recent immigration trends
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Israel#Ethnic_... Chart only includes Jews, unfortunately, but that is 75% of the population.
But man that got me into looking at some of the other measures used alongside that, and the "Long Term Orientation" might be some of the most inane, incoherent garbage I have ever heard. I'd say it's asian exceptionalism but it's not even that - it just doesn't make sense. Every explanation of it seems different, and most explanations aren't internally consistent, literally including examples of the same thing at opposite ends as though it were different. As far as I can tell the original concept seems to have started out with "lets make a rating that puts china at the top/I heard of yin and yang once" and gone from there, but even then as described it usually is stupid, putting things like "belief in tradition" and "desire for stability" as things in the SHORT term column and "adaptability" in the long term column like lol what
Also, how does one apply this information?
Lastly, what about international teams? I have colleagues from different parts of the world - how would this apply in a meeting where some are USAnians, some Canadians, some German and some Eastern a European.
Lastly, the US is huge. SoCal is probably different from Missouri from Cambridge, MA.
Would love to hear your take on this.
It still remains bullshit corporate speak as the language isn't just more polite, it tries to stay non-binding, basically a refusal at communication.
It doesn't say anything about hostility either. A support worker will still smile while having unsavory thoughts about the customer. Hence many people think of it as a dishonest form of communication which it basically is.
If you represent a company in public, you have no real choice not to use it. Rules of amoral businesses.
Let's start with the first example. The polite way to say "you are overcomplicating this" is "I think this could be simpler". Not "let's concentrate on initial scope", which isn't remotely the same thing in general. The latter is less generally applicable (how do we know there was an initial scope?), less specific (why stick to initial scope?), and more prescriptive ("let's do this" instead of "I listened to your idea and this is what I think of it").
Now, being less specific and more prescriptive may be some people's idea of effective self-interested corporate behavior, since it works to minimize your vulnerabilities and maximize the obligations of others. But I think communication is more meaningful, effective, and respectful if you explain how you evaluate others' ideas (which implies you at least gave them the respect of listening) before just telling them what to do.
They're not all bad though! I definitely think "that's a horrible idea" is productively replaced with some version of "I have these concerns" or "I think there may be better alternatives". It's generally good to avoid terms that communicate nothing but negative affect and instead communicate whatever ideas that prompted the negative affect.
EDIT: another comment mentions Power-Distance Index, which is part of a broader cultural dimensions theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimens...
Apparently I have a very strong preference for low PDI culture, as do most of you. But it's good to be aware that that's not universal and our style may require adaptation for success with diverse audiences.
Personally I find it across the range of the US (and of course other countries), but people in different areas will phrase it differently where the meaning can be clearer/lost depending on the familiarity with both the phrasing of the sentence and the culture of the person (I.e I find people in southern US will sugarcoat things differently but it's harder/easier to pickup depending on your familiarity with it).
As a Southerner that's worked in tech for a long time, I would say the broad-stroke difference between the way Southern US and West Coast approach sugarcoating is that Southerners will try to avoid saying anything directly negative /about the person/ but will have no problem being directly negative about the problem. Outside of religious contexts or in less conservative / more blue-collar surroundings, even profanity is acceptable in professional settings in the South. E.g. rather than "Bill didn't maintain the hydraulics properly on this piece of equipment." it'd be "The fucking bucket is stuck again on the backhoe." Where everyone involves knows it was Bill's job, but nobody is going to call him out directly.
Where, in West Coast settings, there's a sort of indirection that tries to (in my opinion) remove agency from the people involved entirely and sets the problem up as being inherently systemic. WRT to example above, e.g. "The maintenance process for heavy equipment should be revised to prevent future issues." when everybody involved presumably knows it's /a particular piece of equipment/ that's actually the problem, and one person failed to do their job, but nobody will say either of those things directly.
The result, as I see it, is the Southern approach prevents /direct/ blame, but creates indirect blame/accountability for individuals, and focuses on specific/smaller problem areas. The West Coast approach avoids accountability (and agency) of the people involved entirely, but has the benefit of looking at problems more systemically (although sometimes that's a waste of time/effort).
This is absolutely the diplomatic way to communicate and handle the situation on the West Coast, but interestingly, while we talk about the problem systemically, that's not necessarily what's actually happening. By putting in place a process-driven solution, Bill isn't directly blamed, but some of his autonomy is stripped away.
Sometimes the proposed systematic solution isn't even ever implemented, because what's actually being communicated is just "Don't fuck this up again, Bill."
This is key, but something that goes beyond communication styles. One reason I feel our society is dying in bureaucracy at every level is that larger organizations and more broad functions within industries always get standardized and then rigidly turned into processes, usually incrementally over time. Every time someone makes a mistake, we have a "this is why we can't have nice things" moment, but to some degree I bridle at this and feel it's inherently dehumanizing. Organizations and societies are made up of people, and people should be free to make mistakes, the structures in place merely need to prevent disastrous consequences, not /any/ consequences. Autonomy is a function of personal well-being and fulfillment, and it's literally dehumanizing to strip it away, even if "it's for a good cause".
The net effect of all of this is why the US (and the West generally) can't successfully complete any major infrastructure projects on time and under budget for a reasonable price. These types of projects can happen pretty easily in the developing world (although the pendulum probably swings too far towards callousness to human life there).
Alternatively, "I think this can be simpler. Your thoughts?"
If you feel like you genuinely need to let people know that something wasn't your fault (which would be a bit of an organizational red flag) that's an action item for you to make sure your interjections are more visible next time.
I think a direct, kind, but clear and unambiguous response would go a lot farther. Followed by a suggestion, to demonstrate you’re not just complaining, you’re trying to be helpful.
To your point about culture: feeing like you couldn’t say any of the following probably says a lot about either the environment, or about your own comfort with candor.
You are overcomplicating this -> This sounds overcomplicated to me. Have you considered X instead?
That meeting sounds like a waste of my time -> Can you clarify what you’re hoping for from me being in this meeting? Can I read the notes, or send feedback async instead?
I told you so -> (Ask yourself why you want to even say this. Then, don’t say it, and say the why instead.) 1. “Well, that’s a shame. Are you looking for suggestions on next steps?” 2. “Should we go back and consider plan X?” 3. “What did we learn from this outcome?”
The way this often goes down is that someone who is perceived as more senior will push something through, steamrolling right over well-formed interjections. If someone lower on the org chart tries to make more noise than the steam roller, the consequences can be quite bad for them.
If something then fails as predicted, why shouldn't that be noted? If someone has expertise that was ignored, that should be taken into account in the future, and part of the post mortem should be figuring out why their expertise was ignored.
The thing is, it should probably be noted by management or whoever is in the chain of responsibility and probably not by the person who was ignored, but management often doesn't want to admit mistakes of this type.
So what do you do then? How is it constructive to ignore a glaring issue in your planning and decision making process?
Takes a certain skill to be tactful and deliberate enough to do this.
Yet it takes mastery and wisdom to know when to say your peace and rest on that.
It's been my experience that even with a sufficient and proper amount of CYA, visibility and otherwise intentional effort put forth so that your actions and words toe the line and dutifully provide context, one can still find themselves on the pointy end of the blame stick being wielded by the more powerful, persuasive or otherwise popular trying to cover their own asses.
In fact, I would argue its literally your job to do so. You’re paid to make the right decisions AND to persuade others (and to be persuadable if you’re wrong).
If it turns out you were right but failed to convince others because you failed to present all valid arguments, then you are negligent.
Unfortunately, most organizations don’t do distributed meritocratic decision making. The hierarchical structure is often a key component of the failure lattice, and it’s attributes and effects need to be confronted directly.
I think it can be very productive to say something like "hey, I'm a little upset because I tried to get ahead of this problem and to me, it didn't feel like my concerns and ideas were taken into account and now we're considerably behind. I'd like to be helpful on these types of problems in the future, can we make a change to support that?"
If the statement is just about ego, it shouldn't be said. If there's something deeper that is causing relationship or business issues, find a way to dig it up and say it clearly with the goal clearly outlined.
If I am your supervisor chances are that I would package it more friendly, but it depends. More importantly is that we put this conflict behind us. Depending on the relationship it could be "I told you so, next time let us do X".
I can almost guarantee that if someone is saying, "I told you so", they've probably also tried to explain to someone why X is a bad idea or why Y isn't going to work the way they think it will, or at all.
At the time, I felt like “no one asked me to fix this, and I was doing all these other things you did ask me to do, so why are you bitching that I didn’t fix it?”
Subsequently, I wasn’t so sure and now lean towards thinking that I was in the wrong for not taking initiative on an item that was that critical and where I was the company expert.
The professional way to say "I told you so" is to write a post mortem.
- What was the problem?
- What solutions were considered?
- Why was the chosen solution implemented?
- How did the chosen solution fail?
- How would have considered but discarded alternatives fared?
- What will be the choice in the future?
That's basically "I told you so" in report form. Just stick to the facts and it's not petty but helpful. Hidden under the ego stroke of "I told you so" is a lost opportunity to have taken the correct or better path when it was available. Understanding why that opportunity was lost is important for an organization.
Step one is for everyone to agree the outcome was poor (or for the client to say so, or the market, or senior leadership, etc.).
Otherwise writing that report is very literally "I told you so", written to make a point.
(I do think it is a related scenario where the outcome was fine but you still believe an alternative approach has value; so you then have to make a choice between accepting "my way is not the only way" and moving on or repeating your point)
You have not heard from me because further information is not available at this time, Once I have an update I’ll be sure to loop you in
“The internet is a great resource for these types of questions and I am available to clarify elements that you are not able to find online.”
Instead of “Google that yourself”
"you are overcomplicating this"
I would put it in the 3rd person or include myself in the problem, and I would apologise at the start for saying something negative, so I would say for example:
"Sorry, but I think we're overcomplicating this, what do we think about the following idea..."
I've found that works fantastically because I'm sort of saying I'm wrong or have caused an issue (I haven't) and they're included in my suggested solution (they're not really) so it makes a great way to change peoples minds (if you don't mind pretending you're having a bad idea too and giving them credit for yours).
I apply this to everything and it works great. You get a lot of people taking credit for your good ideas, but I don't mind if it means the solution is better.
(if the onus moves to the demand-makers instead, then perhaps we can improve workplace cultures and find something more like the root cause(s))
The reason for me is that I am in a reasonably senior leadership role. So even these diplomatically framed options would come across the same way "don't bother me" etc.
Investing myself as part of the team is a key way to make sure I can give feedback in a safe and engaged way.
You do have to actually be engaged though. And it can be a fine balance between engaged and interfering.
Upwards & with direct reports I am more blunt, depending on the dynamic of the relationship. For people I have minimal relationship with (say peers in a different part of the business) I'll tend to flip it as a question; so not "this meeting is not a good use of my time" but instead "what, specifically, might you need from me in the session" (asking for clarification also has the advantage of challenging your assumptions)
Managing down, I use “we” and (narratively, if not always in practice) to include everyone in a decision. (Some caveats: e.g. just be direct about stuff they have no say in; no one wants you to pretend they’re included in like reorgs or something). This isn’t about tricking them into misunderstanding how much power they have—it’s about creating the safety for them to push back directly on something they disagree on, despite being objectively less powerful. They’ll feel more comfortable doing the managing upward part directly and effectively.
I’d never say most of the things on that list for fear of feeling squirmy, evasive, or, yes, passive aggressive.
In general, people want firm but open bosses, and bold but accepting staff, where this way of approaching communication works. If you don’t have that, you should find them.
“Do you think this is too complicated?”
“Is there any way we can simplify this?”
Yes it’s complicated because it’s complicated. If it could have been simplied I would have done it already.
I would approach this like
I think this is overly complicated. Let’s see if we can simplify.
It’s direct. It says what I truly believe and it puts me on the side of having to do work to simply fit as a collective “we”.
Thoughts?
For me, I often try to add a 2nd-person component in there, so it goes 1st-person (singular), 2nd-person (singular), 1st-person (collective).
"I think this is overly complicated, and I imagine you might as well. Shall we find a way to simplify it?"
Just say: “I think we might be able to simplify this a bit…<say idea>. What do you think? Do you think that would work?”
"Oh, fuck...i messed up real big. This is not a fucking 'we' situation, at all".
Thank goodness I told my boss to stop the bullshit. And, regarding myself, they stopped. When they do it with others, and I am present, they realise...and then stop.
Some examples generated using the site title and tagline in the beginning of the prompt, confidence 0, and the first 3 samples. Some are misses, but it can be tweaked to come in very useful when I don't know how to provide constructive criticism or feedback.
There is a fly in my soup: I’m afraid there is something in this food that shouldn’t be here.
Fuck you: I strongly disagree with your approach/decision.
You make me cringe: Your delivery makes me feel uncomfortable.
I never loved you: Our relationship was purely professional.
I am so tired of all your fucking meetings: I’m not able to attend all the meetings you’re scheduling. Can we review which ones I can be of most help with?
I'm fed up with all these dumb "coaching" courses: I’ve taken a number of courses on this topic and I’m not convinced that this is the most effective use of my time.
I'd like to end our contract as you have been late for the deadline twice and haven't even given me a heads up: I regret to inform you that I will be terminating our contract as of today.You can share it via opening an issue here (https://github.com/AkashRajpurohit/howtoprofessionallysay/is...), so it becomes a bit easier to track
Reserving opinion on how much I agree with the sentiment :)
There are some here that are okay, but a lot just shouldn't be said (like "I told you so").
If I told someone something and they ignore it, potentially even multiple times why should I not say it?
Maybe you're fine with the likely outcome. But maybe not.
* And there’s a distinction between what’s likely to happen and what you think should happen. They’re not always the same thing.
If you make a prediction correctly, and it is ignored, then that's an indication that you should either make it more assertively next time, or you just can't work with this person.
And anyway, some humbleness is due -- sometimes we think we've given good advice, but it ends up being somehow inapplicable to the problem for reasons that are outside our scope.
- Remind them next time it's relevant - "Remember last time we touched this service and the Widget crashed and took the rest of switch down with it? I think this could be similar and we should reconsider my plan to isolate the network before hand."
- Mention it to your manager. Failing to heed a warning can be blameless and rational, but if you're consistently right when others aren't that's a sign you should have more formal influence (and responsibility). You won't get that by complaining to peers.
- If it was extremely serious (it rarely is - the really bad stuff is usually stuff no one foresaw) and your concerns dismissed out-of-hand (also rarely the case - people legitimately have different priorities), discuss it with your/their manager.
You can also of course do it if there is no other escalation path - CEOs and EMs ideally didn't get where they are by being unable to take criticism - but you should also be very sure your advice really was right, and not a stopped clock.
OP's site adjusts the register to something more polite.
The confrontational statements are still confrontational when phrased more politely.
I can still tell you're being an asshole even if you write in business English, so can others who read it, and no-one is giving bonus marks for "professionalism".
I've worked in the UK and in Germany. In the UK there's much more of a tendency to use roundabout phrases to get across what you mean, much like many of this site's suggestions. In Germany, people tend to be more abrupt. Both registers can be just as kind and supportive, and just as cutting and destructive. But either way, there's no magic politeness spell you can cast that stops you from appearing to be, like the parent commenter says, an asshole.
LATIN: Stercorem pro cerebro habes.
WHAT YOU SAY IT MEANS: That's certainly food for thought.
WHAT IT REALLY MEANS: You have shit for brains.
For example, for "answer my emails", the author suggests: "If there’s a better way to get in contact with you please let me know as I am hoping to have this resolved as soon as possible". This is a totally valid and common way to say that. However, taken literally, it's silly! The person would need to read this email in order to know to suggest a different way to get in contact with the sender. Who's going to reply and say (basically) "I got your email, but please contact me with the same inquiry on (different contact method)"?
Another way to rephrase "answer my emails" would be to say "Just checking: did this email get flagged by your spam filter?" It's similarly facially silly: if it was flagged as spam, then this followup would likely also be flagged as spam, so the recipient wouldn't see it. But it signals to the recipient that you don't/won't consider their slow reply to be their fault, which could increase your likelihood of getting a reply. And other things (eg the recipient doesn't want to be seen as having a dumb spam filter, short 1-question emails get the highest response rate, the recipient now has an opportunity to immediately help clear up a simple question--was the email flagged as spam--which is an immediate reward for them, etc.).
Ah, the infinite complexity of human communication.
- You are overcomplicating this
Wow, You've put a lot of thought into this- that's great! I think we can probably simplify it a bit though. What do you think?
Is attendance mandatory? I'm not sure what I'll be able to bring to the table on this one.
(Silence is golden)
That would probably work if $thing were true, but in this case I don't think it'll apply. What do you think?
- I already told you this
Oh, I think this is something we already covered. Did you you remember when we talked about $this?
OK, so for $question, you're saying $this. What do you think about $otherquestion(s)?
Oh, I think I actually covered this in the email I sent this morning - is $emailsubject not what you're referring to?
I really wish I had a better answer right now, but I simply don't. Feel free to check with me later today, but as soon as I hear back on this I'll definitely keep you in the loop.
Oh, I thought you were the right person to go to for this. Who should I be talking to instead?
Oh, I don't know the answer to that, I usually don't deal with $thing. Have you talked to so-and-so? Here lets hop on a call with them and we'll get it figured out together.
I'll be glad to do it, thanks. I do need to know if you want this done before or after $things though, since those are still in progress.I've gotten way better and your post is an excellent way to do so, but I still struggle to find a good way to phrase "Stop asking me to work on the weekends for things that are very low impact".
The first step would be to confirm that you are in fact being asked to do this, and what you think the consequences of ignoring the request would be.
It can be okay to just not do something you're asked to do, or at least not do it right away. People don't have a right to your time and effort just because they wrote you an email or a Slack message.
I agree it'd be nice not to be asked in the first place, but the first step in a situation like this is to minimize the impact of the requests on you.
I need to adjust my work/life balance a bit. If anything super urgent comes up on the weekend, definitely let me know. Otherwise It'll need to wait until Monday. Thanks for understanding :)You have a contract, stick to it.
Why can't we be just efficient and say what we're thinking? So much time is wasted at work simply because we have so differently compared to when we are with friends/family.
Triggering emotions is far more inefficient than using a couple of extra words to attempt to make people feel valued and respected.
>So much time is wasted at work simply because we have so differently compared to when we are with friends/family.
I take it your partner has never said to you "why can't you be as nice and respectful to me as you are at work?"
Btw: That's a great example where someone thinks they are polite but, in reality, aren't at all. More words won't help with that.
I think it’s far better to find a genuinely more empathetic thought process and then express those thoughts without having to specially obfuscate it to sound nice.
In other words, no would would ever say "stop bothering me" in a professional environment. However, saying "you have not heard from me because there is no information" is still extremely strong and direct.
While it's possible to imagine someone saying this in an office, if I heard it, I would assume that the speaker is very frustrated, perhaps a bit angry, and probably wanted to say a bit more if they could get away with it. That might be appropriate if someone really is literally calling you every two minutes, but otherwise, it is not really appropriate in a context where you are trying to maintain good relations with a customer/coworker.
- Group 1 : These alternatives suggestions are great!
- Group 2 : These alternatives sound like corporate-drone-speak that are passive-aggressive and condescending.
The differences in perception seems like a unintended Rorschach Test. The differing interpretations looks like a worthy candidate for somebody's PhD psych research paper.
Conclusion: Projecting an intended tone to a universal audience is hard. Possibly unresolvable.
I wish I could tell people at work "Check your goddamn E-mail, this is the third time I've asked you to do your job!" or "Can you stop talking? You're derailing this fucking meeting!" but we can't if we expect our careers to go anywhere besides the basement.
I think another awesome translator would be the reverse: When someone tells you something in corporate-drone-speak that sounds CorporateUpbeat, help me to figure out what it's really saying. Is this person really happy, or are they seething with rage at something I did, and can't articulate their anger in a work setting without coating it with passive aggressive euphemisms?
I've worked in a blue collar setting where people were direct and unambiguous. "You need to put the wrench back after you're done using it." is much better than "I would like to encourage you to address the speed at which you submit your TPS reports, given our well understood weekly cadence."
I ask because I work in this space and have avoided going into corporate spaces after quitting consulting about 10 years ago and am curious to dive back in.
Is there a term for it that resonates more with you?
(To answer the edit: I think this emotional communication reminds me so much of EQ and all this. Dealing directly on the language layer with this seems more next level I would say)
Yes, that's how I'm hoping to act more these days. I've been locked into trying to project a certainty in business and I want to project more uncertainty, more experimental energy instead of "I know the answer" energy.
> At least it sounds less technical
Haha, true. But maybe the more technical works for the engineering places? Maybe I'll use both. "Emotional communication from a metalinguistic perspective." :-D
Or, "I teach people how to say how they feel." Which is pretty close to how one might say it using Natural Semantic Metalanguage[0].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage
The website could come in handy if I ever need to translate some of these theatrics back to human speech. The ability to switch the variants around would be a nice to have ;)
Edit: removed unintentional rudeness, throwing OP a bone
Or... let's just not? In writing, always avoid clichés. Whether it's "do the needful", "by utilizing" or "we did not live up to our customer's expectations", there is one simple rule: if you've seen the exact same sentence or expression before in the exact same context in the last week or so, you should probably avoid it.
And if that makes you unsure what exactly to say, just type what you mean, then get an editor before posting it to your blog or incident report. And if it's time-sensitive, then just ask for forgiveness later, not permission upfront (which is also a cliché but reworded, see what I did there?)
In fact, I’m so far removed from this kind of lingo that I have to ask: is this website an accurate depiction of how people communicate in other organizations? Or is this a caricature?
This is held up as a great example of transparent communication. For me, this is true, but only for the meaning of 'transparent' which equates to 'you can see right through it, to the extent there is effectively nothing there'.
But as per the article this comment thread is about, this kind of response apparently the 'professional' state-of-the-art.
Yes, I despair too...
In some cases, you can fix this by asking the sender to be, like, normal. This works half the time, the other half involves referrals to HR...
I was about to be tongue-in-cheek and ask why the “professional” way of asking that question might be.
… then I saw the very next sentence and chuckled aloud.
What a nightmare :/
That's a professional way to say: I'm pretty sure this site is satire.
Just look at the source Instagram, it's meant to be funny/relatable. Not actual advice. https://www.instagram.com/loewhaley/
I wanted to say:
- I'm not guilty of this, I didn't chose who.
- Half of the team will be fired.
- It is all right if you want to point a finger.
- They're doing a bad thing because they don't know how talented you are.
- I don't know the criteria used, but it is not my job to contest or specify it. Whoever did it, I'm sure had a though task doing so.
- About 50% of the team was chosen to continue under "advance notice".
- Last meeting, everybody got together to comment on the situation and I'm sure it will happen again because it is just unavoidable.
- Talking for myself, independent of who was chosen, I can say that there is absolutely no doubt about your skills.Not your fault, I am sure - and I much prefer your version of the meeting! But it should always be a personal conversation with HR support.
I see you’ve chosen to play with fire.
is how I’d read this version, which is a threat
I didn't look at all of these but this one stuck out:
> I told you so
> As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise.
Don't say this. It's just as bad and really negative. It's not even passive aggressive. It's just aggressive.
If you say "Being mindful of timelines. Let’s concentrate on the initial scope." you move the meeting forward but come off as a jerk.
If you say "Those are good thoughts - lets make note of them and circle back at the end of the call" you've moved the meeting forward, the 1 person feels heard and doesn't hate you, and everyone else silently thanks you for skipping the overcomplicated person.
This is just trying to shove planning/work that isn't mine down my throat with corporate action words. I've taken to using a "blunt-ish" approach. It may not be the best for my career, but at least I don't feel like a passive drone being railroaded.
Example:
THEM: We really need this config changed on our prod servers for our app deployment to be successful. We have raised CHG1234 for this to be done this afternoon. Please do the needful on priority.
ME: Production changes require a 2 week lead time, you need to resubmit this change in accordance with this policy. <link-to-policy>
THEM: How can we escalate? We cannot wait 2 weeks.
ME: ...
I just don't respond any further. I give them the exact reason for the "no" and don't engage with the rest of their badgering. EVERYTHING else they will respond with is an attempt to manipulate me into violating policy for their benefit, with no credit for me saving the day, yet all of the risk if I don't.
Nope.
I don't think this is really any better. Going unresponsive doesn't wind up improving anything. Not to say that you should cave, but a "if there are any questions or issues with the policy, please take it up with <manager>" let's the other person know that you're disengaging. Otherwise they're in a situation along the lines of "I asked how we could escalate, but I haven't heard back. I don't know if they haven't read my message yet or just aren't responding for some reason"
If you're in this situation, there's a disconnect between policy and process that needs to be resolved. Let the management demonstrate their "leadership" skills.
No human being speaks to someone else like this in a normal situation. Just say what you mean and stop dancing around silly social games like this.
I used to work at a former Nokia company and my PO was Finnish. He would get people upset all the time by simply being too direct, especially with American colleagues.
I get mildly upset when people send me messages like this, because I know that wasn't what was in their head and that's not what they wanted to tell me.
It feels really... I don't know, like you can't even bother to speak to me like we're human beings.
I'd rather someone just talk to me like a normal person than use this corporate buzzword speak. But I was also raised in a family where you'd be told to "stop being an idiot" and then an explanation of why what you're doing was stupid. My mum wasn't one to mince words.
When you encourage people to interpret candor as hostility, you make everyone constantly afraid of offending others. It's hard to build trust and rapport with your coworkers in that environment.
If you can casually tell someone they're acting like an idiot, it's (to me) a sign that you have a level of trust with that person and the ability to empathize/communicate with each other.
If someone comes to you in private and says, "Look man, you're really fucking up.", it hits different than "You might reconsider some of your recent behaviors."
It shows that you are emotionally invested enough to use empathic language, rather than make blasé/meek innuendos to avoid any chance of offending them. The point is "You need to hear this" and not "I want to avoid offending you", which feels more productive to me.
The initial phrase is what you use in verbal communication, if you have a close working relationship. The 'professional' version goes in the email, which you assume is publicly distributed.
I once sat in a meeting of reps from about a dozen big companies in the agchem industry. They were proposing some kind of cooperative data thing. One guy spent five minutes spouting exactly this sort of enterprise speak, and it all could have been boiled down "what's in it for us?"
A good deal of corporate culture is people just following the patterns they see around them to conform. A good deal of culture change is just proudly, kindly, and confidently demonstrating how to do better - and having epic patience to wait for people to take notice and start following you (which might never happen.)
Half the reason for mastering it is to avoid coming off as a huge back of dicks by inadvertently sending the wrong message through some polite-seeming offer to help or whatever.
1) you're not delivering on time
2) I see a delay in progress
for 1), the speaker interjects an implicit judgment which the receiver has to defend against or quietly accept under duress.
for 2), the topic shifts from the receiver to the work; both parties are on the same team working towards the same goal.
1) you're not delivering on time 2) I see a delay in progress...3) I feel frustrated that the project is not yet done.
or go even further and include the 2nd-person (imagined and uncertain) emotional...
4) I feel frustrated that the project is not yet done and I imagine maybe you're feeling frustrated as well or maybe overwhelmed, I don't know.
I find 4 works SO well. especially if I add a 5th version in there, including a phrase to express love/care/unity...
5) I feel frustrated that the project is not yet done and I imagine maybe you're feeling frustrated as well or maybe overwhelmed, I don't know. I just want to let you know that I'm here for you.
>As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise.
Whew ... that sounds quite arrogant and egoistical.
I'd probably just say "you see, I told you so" with a very friendly attitude, almost as a joke, followed by "but it's fine, let's focus on how are we going to proceed now that ...".
But "as per my prediction, revenues were below target again" or "x is not functioning correctly. This does not come as a surprise" is normal enough corporatespeak, and more polite than "I told you so" because it could mean other things.
What made me chuckle a bit is how real these situations were on a daily basis at Amazon, and how I’d write an email or Chime message only to rewrite it and discard it… “hmm, how do I respond without being passive aggressive? How do I keep my mental sanity?”
I think the underlying issue is more that, yes, if you’re already feeling like saying any of the original messages, communication and understanding is probably already damaged. Which makes it a higher degree of difficulty challenge to put things back on better footing.
Good communication definitely takes practice. Maintaining positive intent and respecting the other person’s humanity and feelings is vital.
Finding a way to speak clearly and truthfully without being outright rude, as appropriate for the culture and situation, is important. Speaking up when necessary is important. But it's a lot more nuanced than phrase substitution.
Some of these are pretty good. Some would make you sound extremely passive-aggressive. Some of them imply your own attitude problem ("I told you so...").
A lot are most professionally handled by saying nothing at all. While it is important to speak up truthfully when there would be some positive outcome for you or me or your team, some of these fall into a category where the best outcome is to leave it. It's either irrelevant, unhelpful, or a self-solving dilemma ;-)
Pretend Nice ! => Professional - you're fooling no one
We may have very different definitions of "euphemism", but I do not see saying "I’m unable to add value to this meeting but I would be happy to review the minutes." instead of "That meeting sounds like a waste of my time" as a euphemism.
The benefit of the former is that you are signaling an openness to being wrong. The latter doesn't imply you're right, but nor is it signaling an invitation to disagree. In my experience, when people (including me) say the latter, they are wrong about 50% of the times - there often is something in the meeting that made it useful. Stating it is a waste of my time will come across as arrogant (justified or otherwise).
Even saying "I'm not sure there's value in meeting. What are you hoping to gain from this meeting?" is better than "I think it's a waste of my time".
To me the euphemism part is "I’m unable to add value to this meeting" which means "I don't see the need for me to attend this meeting".
Your examples are better too. Adding a question to ensure you've not misread the situation is absolutely the right thing: "I don't see the need for me to attend this meeting, is there something you needed me for?"
Every time your boss tells you, "Hey, can you tone it down next time? Fred told me he was very offended by your asking him to do his job!"-- you're being asked to participate in the game.
> Thank you for your patience
Gave me a little chuckle :)
I figure this "corp-speak" is supposed to help to deliver the message clearly while milding the confrontation down insensibly. Some of the proposed lines, merely repharsed into a colder, official tone, aren't too great at that. But this one is quite clever!
I am on a new job and out of Russia now, so most of communication is in English. My manager pointed out to me, that my softness may sometimes be interpreted as a passive aggression. Construction like "let's think this through again together" means proposing help in Russian, but can be perceived as " you didn't think it through by yourself, so I will spend my time to show you how it should be done properly".
The problem deepens when we use same words with Americans, Brits and non-native speakers. Non-natives take words at face value most of the time, so it is easiest part. Americans has hundreds of nuance because they speak the language all their life and their cultural background chips in all the time. Brits has passive aggression built in their culture, thus "English humor" and branded sarcasm.
There are two easy solutions for the problem. First - more face time even in remote-first team. People just getting to know each other and interpolate personal traits to written communication. Second - be more specific, clearly communicate intentions and speak as myself: "I feel that there can be better solution, so let's combine our expertise and brainstorm the problem once again".
That hit close to home.
I've had much better success numbering all my asks, that reminds people that there's more than one question to answer. It also helps to cluster all the questions at the end of the email, when possible.
I have gathered the data from a content creator on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/loewhaley/) and yes of course the credits are mentioned everywhere about this.
Based on the responses here it seems like what I started as fun activity can be something more than I thought.
I'll be looking into the possibilities of improving the content to make it less satire and more appropriate for most of the people out there.
Since it's an open sourced project (https://github.com/AkashRajpurohit/howtoprofessionallysay), you can share your feedbacks and idea improvements there.
At ending note, I would just like to say to anyone who feels this is really good and I'm going to use this word by word, please don't, take this as a grain of salt and not seriously (atleast at this point of time till I better structure the content) and anyone who feels negative about this, I'm sorry you feel that way but don't take this very seriously.
Thanks for the entertainment value.
I started this as just a fun weekend activity, but I might proofread the data and take some help to make it better and convenient for others.
The challenge with flat organizations is they reward bullying because they lack recourse to principle and positional authority. This communication style is necessary for navigating them, and it's how most educated people in orgs communicate these days, as they higher you go up the org chart, the higher the percentage of your time is spent essentially just navigating power.
While I see people reacting to the passive aggression in these phrases, that's literally how managers communicate. Bureaucracy is passive aggressive warfare and a power struggle where people try to subordinate and make others accountable to them.
Sometimes someone is only asking you for something because they want to set you up as a blocker for their project to both get more time and blame it on you, or you are being added to something because the person who failed at it needs to add stakeholders to diffuse accountability for the failure - bureaucracies are systems of alien incentives, and the people in them must often operate according to objectively insane rules. If you want to stop this stuff, learn to lead and make sure your org doesn't default to this, or start your own company, and make a place that doesn't run like this.
When I've seen leaders mystified at how their orgs got like this, it was because when they asked everyone to find ways to work together without the toxic culture, they didn't take ownership and set the example, and everyone just interpreted it as, "hide how you are doing this."
the hard part is how to not come off passive aggressive
many (all?) of the places i worked at, the professional versions suggested would get a negative reaction
ultimately, that’s not this tools fault
humans hate to be asked to do anything ever
A good rule to follow is to prefer being Kind rather than Nice. Kind is being blunt and honest. Nice is saying things nicely but not being clear on commitments (see: ruinous empathy).
For example...
A whole bunch of them are just a longer version of making yourself sound like an utter twat, e.g. "I told you so" vs "As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise." .... to the listener both equal "you're a twat".
Then a whole bunch of others just open scope for further problems, e.g. "that meeting sounds like a waste of time" -> "waffle...I would be happy to read the minutes" ..... cue colleague coming back to you asking why you have not read the minutes / for your opinion on the minutes.
Finally, as others have commented, it's all very Americanised and would likely not work in "no BS" cultures elsewhere in the world.
Some examples are:
"Oh you did this incorrectly" --> "This was incorrectly done"
"Why did you make this decision" --> "How was this decision made"
My thinking is, once you remove the attribution or the linking of identity to action, the other person doesn't hear this as a criticism of them or their skill, but rather on the issue or end result.
My hope is this makes them less prone to be defensive in the discussion and hopefully achieve a more productive end result while minimizing negative reactions.
As other comments point out, a lot of the replacements in the article are corporate ways to say fuck off. I think these responses are generally rude and make me less interested in having a working relationship with the sender.
Owning your mistakes is what pros do and deflecting blame is not.
I have worked in netherlands for dutch orgs, I love the fact that communication is direct, people communicate directly. You don't have read between the lines, if something has to be done, it said as it. There is BS in an org. There is toxic politics per say.
It could be just be me but I think an org could work efficiently if there was no reading between the lines and communication was to the point.
Totally unprofessional, remember that you are usually among adults, not kids. Don't be blunt but don't even use this alternative style. Both will get you fired eventually.
My simple suggestion, when something is wrong, make it about us, don't target the individual and try to propose a plan to fix the issue/situation. That's the way to handle conflict, we work together, let's fix issues.
Also, there is a long form of this called "Difficult Conversations", which is a really good book for handling all sorts of complicated issues, both at work and at home. Strongly recommended.
How do I say this?
"One concern we have is y, I think it makes sense that x will resolve it. What are your thoughts?"
"I was thinking about y when coming up with x and thought the issue would be resolved, but maybe I misunderstood a piece of y?"
"Sorry I may not have communicated that clearly - I think x will resolve y but perhaps I misunderstood your question. Can you expand on why x might not solve y?"
Very dependent on culture/etc though. These work great for Americans, but for other cultures they are way too indirect. Unless you and everyone on the call is highly technical, fake taking blame doesn't have the negative impact people think it does. If you have a feeling someone wasn't listening, everyone else on the call has the same feeling. Calling them out likely won't help, but you earn respect if you progress the meeting forward without being a dick.
No need to be rude, no need to fill the space with pseudo-professional gibberish. Just speak plainly.
>"As my workload is quite heavy, can you help me understand what I should reprioritize to accommodate this new task?"
I've used this one a lot and it helped quite a bit. Eventually the boss saw it as obstructive to his demands and started saying "it's all top priority". So I just arranged my priorities as I saw fit based on what I observed his own priorities to be, and it mostly worked out fine. When he'd ask me about all the other tasks he'd assigned, after I reported on what I'd accomplished at the weekly meeting, I'd say "I haven't had time to work on that". It's what he always said to everyone, that he was "so strapped for time, had so many meetings on his schedule" so how could he not accept it? Or he'd say "this other stuff is important, you need to work on it", I'd say "ok, I'll put off THE IMPORTANT THING for a day to do that", and he'd back off. In essence there is only so much time, and when you get to the details of scheduling what you are going to work on, it becomes extremely obvious how long things take to do. Maybe someone more brilliant could do it faster than you, but it will take a year to bring them in and get them up to speed, and they will cost more. If your boss refuses to recognize that and demands more, just do what you can, and reserve some inviolable time for yourself. It's basically a management failure and has nothing to do with you, let them fail. You know your value, you are accomplishing the most important of the work.
Oh, and when the boss stops wanting to prioritize, start looking for a better place to work.
Some of them might require slight changes depending on the context to not sound too passive aggressive.
I do feel like I have some even better suggestions. When I get back to my computer, I’m so taking you up on this.
If an American tells me "Are we confident that this is the best solution or are we still exploring alternatives?" then I'm automatically translating it to "this is complete shit". When someone from Eastern Europe tells me "this is complete shit", I translate it into "hm this looks weird, care to explain?". Plus minus individual adjustments based on my experience with that person.
But there's one thing I never do, and that is taking this kind of communication literally, and therefore I don't really care about flowery language, passive-aggressive clichees, or maybe a little negativity on the other side of the spectrum.
This version of _""professionalism""_ needs double double-quotes, before being killed and dumped in the sea.
Being the most bland, safe, manipulative version of yourself isn't being professional, it's cowardice and soul destroying.
Why do people think "professional" means pretending to be someone else?
For example, the first item is you are overcomplicating this. Saying it that way sounds like you are expressing an objective fact rather than an opinion. Instead, saying let’s concentrate on initial scope is not only more diplomatic, it suggests a path to fix the problem.
If I say something isn’t my job, that’s the end of it, you hear me? I will certainly NOT be happy to waste my time helping you find someone else who can do it. Do your job.
Having an attitude of “I don’t know and won’t make any effort to help you. Leave me alone” is going to negatively impact how people see you, and limit your growth potential in any company.
Maybe that’s fine for you if you just want to write code, but it will stop you from obtaining even team lead type roles where you need to collaborate with others.
As a general rule of thumb, I try to ask "Have you X, Y, or Z'd?" as a quick filter for if the person has engaged with the problem at all. A common example being "Do you know why I'm getting error message X?" "Have you checked the Y logs?"
Ideally, people do some amount of leg work first and proactively state what they've done. Sometimes people will do the leg work, but need to be asked to share the context they've gathered. Sometimes people ask immediately, without any investigation of their own, because you might know and be able to save them time.
Of course, having the full blown belligerent attitude of "I wont make any effort to help you" isn't very welcome, but "You should take a few hours to dive in, if you're still stuck, I'll set aside some time to take a look with you" is pretty reasonable.
The message I want to send is clear. When you want code, come to me. Everything else, I can’t be bothered.
If my idea sucks, just tell me so and we can talk about why, don't beat around the bush with ambiguous politically correct words.
When I see managers speak like this I know the rot of bureaucracy has plagued the company culture and is time to find a smaller/less bs-type company.
It'd be a fun project to create a tool to "auto-correct" these phrases back to their original meaning so everyone knows what's being communicated. Maybe a Gmail Chrome extension?
That being said, so long as you don't feel as aggressive as the premises, you'll be okay.
If someone says the "corrected" version, I'd assume they're impolite, but bad at their job.
"Is the alternative way to express these sentiments?"
There is no "special thanks". You've copied it word-for-word. I think the only reason you've posted this here is to crowd source more content, rather than do the work yourself.
I told you so. ->
As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise.
Seriously though, I think these soft phrasings might be useful for talking to non-technical types or more junior devs. For senior+ devs, I prefer plain-speak.
In what circumstances would you use this phrase?
If they are calling you out of hours, ignore it. They'll eventually get the message.
If it's the first call from someone who doesn't know your working pattern, then you're not really saying "stop calling me", but genuinely telling them when you are available. Putting the details in your email signature works well if you have unconventional hours for your workplace.
If it's someone close to you - e.g. line manager or team mate - then they know your hours, so responding by telling them what your hours are strikes me as less polite than simply saying "I wasn't working when you called, but here I am now."
You need to translate another phrase: "You are sucking up."
Examples:
You are overcomplicating this
this is unnecessarily complex.
That meeting sounds like a waste of my time
if I'm not necessary for this meeting, I would rather do X
I told you so
this is what we talked that could happen, remember?
I'm wondering, would any of you want to listen to a podcast where someone helps people change how they speak, almost like a Dr. Phil meets Marshall Rosenberg (nonviolent communication guy)?
https://www.worldaccent.com/blog/2011/05/british-translation...
Edit: typo
Also, besides the alternatives requiring cultural sensitivity (as some commentators have argued), I think, there is just a little bit more sensitivity required to your receiver’s personality and appetite for bluntness and their role relative to you.
This is a massive assumption.
The way I'm using it is that I'm putting some words from a sentence I want to say, and it will show me how others have used those words. then I'm looking for the common use of those words and building my own sentence.
Many seem to imply a bad relationship or dissatisfaction with a coworker. I would never [again] talk to a coworker about this. I would either ignore it or talk to my manager.
Every time you say those versions of "I told you so", you create one extra arch enemy
There should be a reverse version in reader programs: the bullshit remover.
took me way too long to find it, how do you guys search whatever it is you've seen on the internet
Blunt: You are overcomplicating this
Polite: Being mindful of timelines. Let’s concentrate on the initial scope.
Blunt: That meeting sounds like a waste of my time
Polite: I’m unable to add value to this meeting but I would be happy to review the minutes.
Blunt: I told you so
Polite: As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise.
Blunt: That sounds like a horrible idea
Polite: Are we confident that this is the best solution or are we still exploring alternatives?
Blunt: I already told you this
Polite: As Indicated prior
Blunt: Can you answer all of the questions I asked and not just pick and choose one
Polite: Are you able to provide some clarity around the other questions previously asked?
Blunt: Did you even read my email?
Polite: Reattaching my email to provide further clarity
I’ll provide an update when I have one
Blunt: Stop bothering me
Polite: You have not heard from me because further information is not available at this time, Once I have an update I’ll be sure to loop you in.
Blunt: I don’t want to talk to you right now!
Polite: I am currently tied up with something but I will connect with you once I am free.
Blunt: Do your job!
Polite: It is my understanding that you are the appropriate person to contact in regards to this. But If there’s is someone better equipped for this let me know.
Blunt: That's not my job
Polite: This falls outside of my responsibilities but I would be happy to connect you with someone who can help.
Blunt: Stop assigning me so many tasks if you want any of them to get done
Polite: As my workload is quite heavy, can you help me understand what I should reprioritize to accommodate this new task?
Blunt: answer my emails
Polite: If there’s a better way to get in contact with you please let me know as I am hoping to have this resolved as soon as possible
Blunt: This is not my problem
Polite: I recommend directing this issue to [Name] as they have the proper expertise to best assist you
Blunt: If you would have read the whole email you’d know the answer to this
Polite: I have included my initial email below which contains all of the details you are looking for.
Blunt: I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about
Polite: Can you help me better understand what exactly is it that you require on my end?
Blunt: Stop micromanaging
Polite: I am confident in my ability to complete this project and will be sure to reach out, If or when I require your input.
Blunt: Please hurry and get this done!
Polite: It is important that we have this completed in order to meet our targeted deadlines which are quickly approaching.
Blunt: Stay in your own lane
Polite: Thank you for your input. I’ll keep that in mind as I move forward with decisions that fall within my responsibilities
Blunt: I’ve told you this multiple times
Polite: There seems to be a disconnect here as this information has already been provided
Blunt: I’m not doing your job for you
Polite: I do not have the capacity to take this on in addition to my own workload but I’m happy to support where it makes sense.
Blunt: We do not need to have a meeting about this.
Polite: Being respectful of everyone's time let's discuss this through email until we have a more defined agenda
Blunt: Did you just take credit for my work?
Polite: It is great to see my ideas being exposed to a wider audience and I would have appreciated the opportunity to have been included in the delivery.
Blunt: Google that your self
Polite: The internet is a great resource for these types of questions and I am available to clarify elements that you are not able to find online.
Blunt: What you are saying does not make sense
Polite: We seem to have a different understanding on this. Can you elaborate further on your thought process here?
Blunt: I am not paid enough to do this
Polite: This falls out of my job description but if the opportunity for a role expansion becomes available I would be happy to discuss reworking my contract to better align with these new responsibilities
Blunt: I totally forgot about your email
Polite: Thank you for your patience
Blunt: I'm going to need a whole lot of more information if you want me to do this
Polite: Please let me know when further details become available as I require more information to successfully complete this task
Blunt: Stop calling me before my workday even starts
Polite: If you need to contact me, please note that my working hours being at 8 am and 6 pm. Communications received prior to this won't be seen.
Blunt: Check your inbox, I already sent this to you!
Polite: I previously sent you an email regarding that but please let me know if something went wrong in transit
Blunt: I couldn't care less
Polite: I will defer to your judgment on this as I am not passionate either way and I trust your expertise.
Blunt: I told you so and now this is your problem
Polite: I did previously note that this was a likely outcome. How do you plan to resolve this?
Blunt: Stop trying to make me do your work!
Polite: I am not able to offer you additional support in completing your workload
-
> As per my prediction, this outcome does not come as a surprise.
Just don't say this -- maybe an "I can't say I'm surprised" if it's an informal setting within peers.
-
> As Indicated prior
Also just skip this, maybe a "Yeah, [copy/paste the relevant line from the initial email]"
-
> You have not heard from me because further information is not available at this time, Once I have an update I’ll be sure to loop you in.
"Unfortunately, I don't have any more updates, but once I do I’ll be sure to loop you in."
-
> It is my understanding that you are the appropriate person to contact in regards to this. But If there’s is someone better equipped for this let me know.
I have to do things like this a lot - my go-to is "According to XYZ you're the best person to talk to about this, but if there's someone else I should reach out to please let me know"
-
> I have included my initial email below which contains all of the details you are looking for.
Just copy/paste the relevant portions from the initial email.
-
> I am confident in my ability to complete this project and will be sure to reach out, If or when I require your input.
"Got it - I'll reach out if I have any more questions and I'll keep you in the loop."
-
> Thank you for your input. I’ll keep that in mind as I move forward with decisions that fall within my responsibilities
"Thanks for your feedback, I'll keep it in mind. [Add a question about what they wrote so you seem actually invested in their ideas]"
-
> There seems to be a disconnect here as this information has already been provided
Just copy/paste the relevant portions from the initial email.
-
> Being respectful of everyone's time let's discuss this through email until we have a more defined agenda
This one is more benign but I think it implies the other person isn't being respectful of everyone's time. "I think it'd be beneficial to keep this to email until we have a more defined agenda"
-
> It is great to see my ideas being exposed to a wider audience and I would have appreciated the opportunity to have been included in the delivery.
I've never had to deal with a problem like this, but I don't think this solves much. I don't have an alternative for it but this seems like an issue that wouldn't benefit from minor passive-aggression.
-
> The internet is a great resource for these types of questions and I am available to clarify elements that you are not able to find online.
"I'd be happy to hop on a Zoom call to help you out." -- Don't be the LMGTFY guy.
-
> This falls out of my job description but if the opportunity for a role expansion becomes available I would be happy to discuss reworking my contract to better align with these new responsibilities
These seem to be getting more passive aggressive as I scroll, heh. "I don't have the bandwidth or ability to do something like that, but XYZ may be of better service in this department"
-
> Please let me know when further details become available as I require more information to successfully complete this task
Specify what things you need to complete the task.
-
> If you need to contact me, please note that my working hours being at 8 am and 6 pm. Communications received prior to this won't be seen.
Just don't reply. Mute your phone?
-
> I did previously note that this was a likely outcome. How do you plan to resolve this?
"What's the plan to resolve this?"
-
> I am not able to offer you additional support in completing your workload
"Unfortunately I don't have the bandwidth to help out on that. I'd reach out to [my manager] to see if we can adjust our goals to support you with it"
For people not familiar with her content, take a look e.g. here: https://www.instagram.com/p/CcDPE1MOIBT/
This project is not just inspired by her work, but takes her jokes verbatim in written format. I you quote people, you're supposed to use quotation marks.
Of course if this is a collaboration, things are different, but it's not clear that it is.
These are just some phrases and not "quoting people's thoughts", I did not consider adding quotation marks to each phrase.
I have added relevant credits every place possible (on web as well as code repo). I'll be happy to make the intent more clear if you have any ideas on how you would feel it can be best represented.
Edit: And state your intentions, i.e. making the content searchable.