How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into a deeper hole
charity.wtf
charity.wtf
If trust has been damaged, it might take more than just talk to repair it. You may need to give the other person part of what they want as a gesture of good will. I've seen this go a long way in certain situations.
Of course, this comes with some caveats. For example, if there's a power imbalance in a damaged relationship, it's not appropriate for the disadvantaged side to be making sacrifices. Also, the person making the sacrifice is entitled to notice whether or not the other party appreciates it. After all, no one wants to be taken advantage of.
The point is sometimes you just need to demonstrate a charitable attitude when you want things to get back on track.
Words are cheap, and trust is expensive to repair, if it can be repaired at all.
Instead, both sides will view themselves as disadvantaged. That's how you got into this mess.
You can do it anyway, and live with the fact that you expect it to be a waste. Sometimes that touches off a virtuous cycle. Sometimes it reinforces a vicious one. There's no way to know beforehand.
I used to sacrifice too much thinking this was how to express love, but often it's counter productive. Either becoming a crutch for the partner or completely losing a sense of self.
Example is phone messages. My girl used to get insecure and ask to see them, I had nothing to hide but obliged. Until I recognise this was feeding insecurity and crossing boundaries. I changed my perspective and the next time I said no. That was met with "arr you hiding something" (i wasnt) but explained concept of sovereignty. She stopped asking. It certainly puts the responsibility on her in that case to deal with her past issues rather than me being a bandaid for them.
That's one example, and I'm just as often the one doing the wrong in my relationship. Interesting learning experiences. But me taking this firmer position has been very important in my wellness.
You're free to leave the employer. If you want to sacrifice your life/free to to gain something in the specific target area you already know that this behavior is expected and usual there.
Labor is only imprisonment if you degrade yourself to it.
"The prisoner's dilemma is a game theory thought experiment that involves two rational agents, each of whom can cooperate for mutual benefit or betray their partner ("defect") for individual reward"
No it totally is. The entire point in it being a sacrifice is that it comes at some cost and it’s not something you have to do. If you’re basically forced to do it, it’s not a sacrifice. If it’s no sweat of your back, it’s not a sacrifice. This applies to both parties. There’s no one-dimensional thing called “power”. If there was then there would be 100% absolutely nothing you could do about the situation.
e.g. Secretary messes up bosses' calendar/email/etc... really badly, usually with the help of a computer, and has to work overtime to fix it, without extra compensation.
Happened to me once, long time ago, I was cleaning up an oracle db production server, and by accident deleted to system datafile of the database. Sat there till midnight to fix it, but at least I had proof the backups were working…
This highlights one of the key differences between owners and employees.
Employees are not nominally liable for mistakes they make while employed, excepting things like gross negligence or malicious behavior.
If an employee makes a mistake, forcing them to work "off the clock" to fix that mistake is a violation of labor law in pretty much every jurisdiction of which I am aware.
An employee could volunteer to do so, but frankly, as a "boss" myself, I would neither expect nor accept such a gesture.
Mistakes happen. It's part of the cost of doing business, and if you're a competent businessman, you factor that in. What I expect is that that employee won't make the same mistake again.
But I have and will never expect someone to work without being paid as agreed.
Companies go to court over the distinction.
If you comitted a bug bringing the whole site down at 16:50 then went "welp, I won't fix it in 10 minutes, sucks to be on ops team today!", your login wouldn't work tomorrow
You just declared this by fiat. People are forced into making sacrifices all the time, and there are no logical fallacies up their sleeves.
I do agree with GP, in sentiment - part of the impact of giving something up in these situations is that it is voluntary.
Forced sacrifice - I don’t think that can restore trust, only subservience; which, to be sure, can be seen as trust in certain situations (the loyalty of a yes-man, for example), but I’d strongly argue that that isn’t the kind of trust the article is talking about.
Reminds me of mob movies.
If one of your guys killed the rival's daughter, to avoid a war the best you can do is meet the rival, be sorry, say you should've been more vigilant and offer your guy or two (the sacrifice) so they can punish them and extract revenge.
Opt-ins can be subtle or explicit relative to the heaviness. Opt-in can be a simple pause allowing the other person to volley back. A chance to follow up with questions, contribute, or change the subject heh. TONS of people don't do this. myself included. Take a beat.
For hard conversations, explicitly ask them if they are are ok talking about X, or if they have time: "hey I wanted to talk about the fight last night, do you have time now?"
I remember a previous role the team leaders all went on a management training course. Everyone came back and started adding "please" to every request. I found it really patronising and felt like I was being spoken to like a 5 year old.
> "Can you run the SQL update in prod?"
Vs
> "Can you run the SQL update in prod please?"
The "please" sounds like an exasperated parent that is fed up giving the instruction.
I'm also starting to get really sick of emojis everywhere. I don't think they added to this article at all. I hope it's just a temporary fad we are going through and this isn't the future of written communication.
In the end, this is a matter of taste. Just because something works for someone, it doesn't mean that it will work for everyone. But also: Just because something fails to work for someone, it doesn't mean that it will fail to work fo everyone.
Also the choice and timing of emojis can be good or bad. Honestly I think it literally comes down to a culture difference between hr types and engineers
And they're thanking you for doing something that will keep them employed.
I had a customer one time like you. I was talking with her on the phone and I was phrasing requests (as I often did) as "would you do this for me?"
"I'm not doing this for you, I'm doing this for my boss," she repeatedly responded, while repeatedly ignoring my directions.
Accept the expression of gratitude, even if your inner narcissism doesn't want you to.
Honestly, the fear of saying this phrase to someone who just happened to play Bioshock and saw Ryan's monologue is enough for me to never-ever use it. I don't know how I'd react if I heard it directed at me, but I'm 99% sure I'd - at the very, very least - say "No, I would not" and go away. There's a fine line between "formative" and "traumatic" and I'm really not sure on which side that playthrough falls, even 15 years later.
It's the same as when sales people talk to me and intersperse "Well, Mr. wink, you know about this great offer, that will benefit you, Mr. wink, very much. As I said earlier, Mr. wink." - makes me want to end the call right at the 2nd mention.
I would tell you to cut that shit out, if you dealt with me in person. I really would.
"Please run the SQL update in prod and notify me when it's complete."
Even though things are beginning to change for the worst in tech world, but, then again, many of the tech people in here see themselves as North-Westerners who happened to be born in the wrong place.
Usually the 'please' is superficial because there is no way to say 'no' without an excuse.
>can you merge that pr pls
I'm not sure why, I guess it just sounds a lot more casual when written down and read? It still gets across that it's a request, not a command, but without that patronising tone. Generally speaking I've very much gone from speaking very formally in chat with my teammates to casual chat where I no longer care for punctuation or capitalisation, makes it feel a lot friendlier I guess?
Obviously for official comms/emails/talking to someone I don't know I format properly and professionally but for day to day stuff I just like keeping casual, like you would speaking in the office I guess.
> "Can you run the SQL update in prod?"
(optionally with "please" appended) and
> "Run the SQL update in prod"
(or something like that)
There's no right answer; you just have to learn what the person you work with needs.
Start with active listening by not interrupting and then confirm with the speaker what you think you heard them say. And so on. There is a community apart from the web site and the core book is worth a read.
This is very interesting. In my experience, it applies especially to people who just can't. stop. talking. When someone gives you literally no chance to say anything (not even a few words), it's really hard to actually keep listening. So I have to either pretend to listen (but my thoughts are drifting off) or start interrupting, which I hate doing.
This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this. It seems like he has a talent to make even little requests sound aggressive when using written communication. If I didn't know him so well, I would certainly interpret that as very rude, even though in RL he's not like that.
Thinking about this, I realize I have something like this as well. With close friends, I can be VERY direct in a way that's both not completely serious, but still carries my true opinion. And I think I do this without thinking too much, it just comes out (although it doesn't seem to happen with people I'm not that close with, maybe because I'm more guarded and self-conscious during those conversations). Luckily my friends can appreciate this tendency even though it would come across as super rude if I did that to a stranger.
(I guess I can't say if my friend's case above is actually very similar. Maybe he, too, uses different language with people he's less close with, trusting that his good friends know him well enough.)
> This is so true. I have a good friend who is, in my opinion, really bad at this.
I don't think it's true at all. Most people, I can perfectly well talk to online and can occasionally have an easier time talking to than in person. The person I'd classify as my best friend, for example, I literally speak to 1-2 times a year, the rest is text conversations (at least once a week we have a longer chat I'd estimate).
But I also know some people that are or were close to me who are terrible at texting. I can't seem to help them improve, either. If I'd believe that not everything can be learned to some extent, I'd say this is apparently something innate. They don't come across rude at all, in my case, but just no conversation flow whatsoever. It's a bit comparable to doing one of those interviews where you have to coax every word out of the interviewee.
(There is also the category of people that only ever text on a phone (slow) or just can't type at a conversational speed in the first place (50wpm/250cpm maybe? Just a guess), or have dyslexia and find reading more than half a phone screen's worth of text a significant hurdle. That's different and not what I mean about being bad at texting.)
Maybe you and the author are not people who are good at texting, and that's why you feel it is 'so true' that a lot is lost in text messages? Or maybe most of my friends and I are the outliers, that honestly wouldn't surprise me either, but either way, this thing portrayed as universal truth is far from it
Do you find that having everything on record to look back helps you? That's one thing I mind about talking: can't look up what was said or what I/we already figured out on some topic. (Occasionally that's a feature of course, but I try to avoid both using messengers that aren't private as well as needing to say things I don't want to be on a record.)
Being able to step back, compose, and edit previous statements before "commit" is definitely an aspect, though.
for example
> Person A: “Hey, do you have any idea why this number is low? It’s a mystery … nobody I’ve talked to yet seems to know.”
is really long
I just say
> curious; why is that number low?
other prefixes I use are:
1. adding to the discussion
2. for discussion
3. low pri, no need to respond
4. neutral
5. nonactionable
6. sharing opinion
https://www.notion.so/aizatto/communication-snippets-fillers...
"Plainly, we discovered our vocal expression was not enough to convey the feelings of our conversations to other species."
I never noticed the analogy before between Elcor and written/online communication. Now I'm wondering if it was intended by the game's writers.
Yes, my boss never heard of "praise in public criticize in private". Welcome to working with a hot-blooded eastern european
Czechs (wholly western to Poland) are always called "Eastern Europeans" in contemporary media and or any place I have ever worked before.
Historically, “Eastern Europe” has been used as more of a derogatory signifier in places where it’s culturally acceptable to make jokes at the expense of Slavs, like in Germany or USA.
Let’s not forget that Vienna is actually geographically further East than Prague, though I doubt many Austrians would be comfortable considering themselves Eastern European.
Poland is pretty squarely in the middle of Europe by a number of metrics.
If we’re talking about time zone, Poland uses Central European [Summer] Time.
If we’re talking geographically, most of the claimants to the geographical midpoint of Europe are actually East of Poland.
If we’re talking politically, then the midpoint of the European Union is said to be in Würzburg, which is only 470km South-West from the border with Poland. And we can hardly say that anything East of Würzburg is Eastern Europe, since that would include all of Austria.
I am calling bullshit. It simply referenced the Soviet zone. Eastern Europe was everything behind the iron curtain, including Eastern Germany. Everything else was Western Europe, including countries in the North and South of Europe.
edit: Its also worth mentioning that framing that geopolitical conflict as racist is highly oversimplistic and counterproductive. The only upside i can think of is signaling and the stakes are far too high for such selfish endeavors. Stuff is just complicated and geopolitical conflicts even more so.
I would however be happy to hear your qualification on this.
I for one wouldn't describe myself as an idiot.
As you are a person who has previously shared Kremlin propaganda on this website, I have nothing more to say to you.
Good day.
That might be the problem and the reason for your unsupported overconfidence. And its no wonder given your unwillingness to consider different perspectives.
You are welcome.
edit: I would hope nobody sees that as a confirmation for the stereotype of Poles being racist. I see no reason to not suspect a Russian sock puppet and neither should you.
Classifying Czechs as closer to Russians than to Austrians does not have basis in today's economy, culture, geography, politics. It fits when you're considering a specific historical period or linguistics.
I learned this the hard way!
I don’t think the historical Iron Curtain is a useful means by which to make that distinction today.
Unless you’re willing to proclaim to Berliners that you love being in Berlin despite it being in Eastern Europe. I think you would raise some eyebrows. Or fists.
(I mean, I was still relieved to avoid it! Just thought it was funny to feel disrespected because I got gentle treatment :)
My boss has several positive attributes, but emotional intelligence is not one of them.
Create a culture where nothing is a personal attack and performance is just what it is, instead of something to be ashamed of.
In school all the kids get all their grades publicly, you don't get public grades if you do good and private grades if you do bad on the exam. And somehow we're all here and understood that it was what it was. The problem is that it was done as a "crucification".
Shouting and blaming and being an ass to someone are wrong to do either in private or in public.
Serious reprimands need to happen in private. We can use euphemisms or severe language, but sometimes people need to be told, "You fouled up, you were careless, you were indiscriminate, and your reckless mistake cost the company more money than you make in a year, which may cost someone ELSE their job because of budget cuts."
Always remember that your foul-ups could cost someone their life or their livelihood. This isn't kindergarten. Adults need to be told honestly about the damage they caused.
An engineer on my team once merged a change that created a security vulnerability, without review. We didn't have any real users on prod yet, and the potential impact was small. But I was still angry because I had given explicit instructions (speaking as the tech lead and the one with the most security experience) that all changes had to go through code review for security issues.
I responded with an email message that was visible to the whole team (about 5 people). I knew it would sting, but I also wanted everyone to know that this was an important line not to cross, because at some point in the near future we did hope to have real users. I wrote, approximately, "You merged this change without review, and that's not okay. I explicitly told you not to do that. As a result, we now have a security vulnerability. Don't ever do that again."
I am paraphrasing from memory, but the tone was not too far off from this: stern, direct criticism without personal attack. At the time, I held myself to a simple standard of communication: stating facts and criticising actions (even bluntly) was acceptable; any criticism of personal attributes was unacceptable. The engineer in question was very hurt and angry with me, and our working relationship was difficult for many weeks after that.
Was I the asshole here? What's your standard of communication, and what would you do, from the point of view of the tech lead or as the engineer?
In general I'd write a similar thing, just speaking of the team, and not overplaying the impact. If you had no users it was no problem, that's the truth. But it would be a problem in the future so you want the team to know and practice safety. People tend to be upset if you hype it more than it is, even an little, and it comes across as you just wanting to be right for rights sake. And generally we/team/process focused language is better than "you fucked up". Why did you even have merges enabled without reviews? It's more your process failure than that guy.
That being said I work in full remote with many different cultures so I have an "international average". If this was a fully Russian team or some such even what you wrote was too soft in my experience and you actually need to be very clear or they think it's nothing.
It's funny, one other commenter pointed out how you won't get far in Eastern Europe without saying "please" and "thank you" a lot. I'm from there and it's true - we have both rude and polite people!
In particular, the parts where you are adding buffers + prefaces ahead of the important content.
That said, non-violent communication is super important, so learning to retract from more direct, factual styles in exchange for a style that make people feel understood and respected as a colleague is important.
Tense situations usually evolve because both parties are adding slight amounts of intensity/unhappiness to the situation iteratively, and the only way to get them back to peaceful is by making commitment to making _the next interaction_ some amount less tense/hostile. Do that repeatedly and you'll get somewhere.
PS: Also Stoicism helps especially with these things... great, practical text on it: "The Practicing Stoic: A Philosophical User's Manual" by Farnsworth
If anyone can remember that link and share it I would love that!
But sometimes you have to work with people who demonstrate traits of Narcissism Personality Disorder or Borderline Personality Disorder. E.g. someone who never accepts responsibility or someone frequently demonstrating emotional lability.
I am not sure the best course of action in these situations.
This stuff will never help with narcissistic ass holes.
If my experience is common (and let’s be real here, unless you’re in the psychology field none of us are qualified to diagnose narcissism), of course this stuff won’t help because the person is right and nothing would sway them, and bitter folks, or maybe jealous folks, decided to proclaim the person has a mental illness (read, they are now flawed and you are superior) as well as insulting them calling them an asshole.
And it’s kinda weird the other way too because if they do indeed have a mental illness, then they are not trying to be abrasive and often wouldn’t even be aware that they were until after the fact, so you’re calling a mentally ill person an asshole because they are mentally ill. Try doing that to someone with any other mental issue and see how well that goes over. But it’s fine to do for this one and everyone is fine with it.
It’s shitty to go into a conversation with the best intentions and yet you always end up fucking it all up, hurting the relationship with that person when your goals were the exact opposite, being confused about why that always happens, and reflecting after the damage is done and seeing where you fucked up, tossing that onto the never ending pile of regret that follows you though life, your lonely lonely life because it’s impossible to maintain any relationship at all, not for long anyway… and then on top of it you’re called an asshole by someone who doesn’t have any idea how much it blows having narcissistic personality disorder (or what kind of childhood environment it takes for such a disorder to take root), or, they don’t understand that it’s not the same thing as someone choosing to be a dick in a conversation.
The problem is that a single genuine narcissist can make an environment absolutely horrible for a large number of people, meaning that even at 1/20, if you work in an area with 50-60 people, you're likely to have at least 2-3 narcissists in that group.
One other thing, I wouldn't call narcissism a "mental illness". There's a difference between a "mental illness" and a personality disorder. Narcissist Personality Disorder is effectively the clinical name for what is commonly known as "being an ass-hole", in the same way that anti-social personality disorder is just the clinical name for what is commonly known as "being a psycho".
Just my PoV:
Everyone is different, and we need to start by doing our best to understand them.
Sometimes, we understand that they are selfish, cowardly pricks, and that we just have to accept that.
That's seldom the case.
One of the lessons I learned, a long time ago, is that hurt people tend to be incredibly self-absorbed. This is people in mental or physical pain. Mother Theresa might have kicked her cat, when she was having a particularly nasty headache. We'll never know.
Understanding people is different from advocating for them, or "taking their side." If you want to understand rats, talk to an exterminator. I know a couple, and they really understand the little buggers.
But also keeping control of my side of the relationship is incredibly important. It should not depend on them. If they are unreliable or dangerous, then it is incumbent upon me, to limit the scope of our relationship.
Easy enough, if we are not in a situation that demands we work together, but I have also done a lot of work, with some very difficult people.
It can be done, but, in my case, it requires that I be quite self-aware, and take responsibility for my part of the relationship; which includes not expecting stuff from people that can't give it.
WFM. YMMV.
Mental illness is just 1 cause for breakdown of goodwill. It's better to ignore the cause, and focus on the optional communication mode for the level of goodwill you're operating from.
just to be clear, trust != good will.
At least, this tactic wouldn't work in the trust breakdowns I've had or witnessed.
Then you can take whatever appropriate actions after that. Sometimes that's get yourself out of the situation where you work or live with them. Sometimes it's decide that while this person is unreasonable to deal with, the rest of the situation makes it reasonable for you to stay, at least for the moment.
Since we work in male dominated field, it is not rare at all and most of us all worked with at least one.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_dis...
> Frequency 0.5%
https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/mental-health/narcissisti...
> Approximately 0.5% of the United States population, or one 1 in 200 people, has the disorder
Regardless, your point does appear valid about male dominated fields:
> There are significant gender differences when it comes to the prevalence of the disorder; about 75% of people with narcissistic personality disorder are men.
> As of 2018, overall prevalence is estimated to range from 0.8% to 6.2%.[68][69] In 2008 under the DSM-IV, lifetime prevalence of NPD was estimated to be 6.2%, with 7.7% for men and 4.8% for women
And there are plenty of people with no real psychiatric disorder, but who are "problematic" to deal with.
And there is the question of how interested the other person is in rebuilding trust.
And there is just asking yourself "am I a person with the the personality, understanding, skills, and patience to deal with this situation?".
I guess "The story in my head is that you asked me to send that status email ..." means that this is what they remember. On the other hand "... the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job" sounds like they mean "the story [that I made up] in my head". Can someone explain?
I might instead instead say 'So, what I'm hearing is you want me to send that email.' But that phrase is often used for passive aggression, so it shouldn't be used in a low trust situation.
It’s also an attempt to make an “unarguable” statement. You and I can debate forever if a chair is blue. But if I say “I think the chair looks blue”, it’s typically unreasonable for you to debate what thoughts are in my head.
She does relate some concepts to her other books though so you may end up getting 3 books by the end of it :)
https://www.amazon.ca/Rising-Strong-Ability-Transforms-Paren...
The intended purpose is to create some space between my mental model (which includes my beliefs about your intentions and feelings) and yours. It allows me to share information about my thoughts while inviting you to offer a different point of view.
Making direct statements about another person's feelings or thoughts ("You're angry", "You think I'm incompetent") will usually offend them or provoke immediate defensiveness. Saying "I have a story..." turns an aggressive-sounding statement into a more vulnerable one.
It's not so much a human relationship as it's a business relationship with high stakes. Human relationships can pass, business relationships become expensive.
How many people stay in a married relationship because of factors outside of themselves?
So wouldn't it be better to make an effort, then, if you've given a reasonable effort to ditch the relationship?
If it's noticeable that someone is using an unusual way of talking, the first impression is that it's merely the first, and insincere.
Example; some twenty years ago I learned this "factoid" that if you hold your palm downwards when giving a handshake (like turn your hand inwards), you will come across as dominant and assertive.
Cue loads of people trying an awkward downward handshake. But to me it comes across as "I am trying to dominate you", and instantly dislike the person.
It's like Trump yanking people in when giving a handshake.
There are tons of articles on LinkedIn written by people who don’t have lived experience in what they’re writing about so they read like a book summary.
Empiricists on the other hand will preside test ideas.
The best teacher is reality.
Oh, that's a pretty great insight! Or maybe not an insight, but it's putting clear words on a pretty important concept.
Articles like this can make people on the receiving end of bad behavior are somehow at fault because they’re not saying please/thank you, etc. it’s a common fallacy, for example, that victims try to anticipate an abusers behavior and take on their own shoulders managing the chaos that is the abusers mood. When in reality there’s nothing you can do.
I’ve learned trust is something you can’t lie to yourself about. It’s mentally so taxing to walk on eggshells constantly. The other side has to put in work.
And I don’t need justification for not trusting someone else. The burden on proof for trust should be relatively high. You can 100% just trust your gut without having to understand or diagnose the other side. In the same way you trust your gut when in love or other situations.
It’s much easier to consider a conflict a “them” problem. That’s most people’s default. I’ve heard thousands of people complain about “them”, but they were never being abused or bullied.
Instead you probably want to default to a conflict resolution attempt, or two or three, or whatever your tolerance is with that person. If those don’t work, then it’s an “us” problem. You tried your best, which is all you can control but the result isn’t working for you and that’s OK. The other person doesn’t have to change and neither do you, but you don’t need to work at it anymore if you’ve given all you’re willing to give.
When I say “difficult people” I define it as you’ve put in energy over time and it hasn’t been reciprocated. The other side hasn’t owned their part. Can’t admit mistakes after you have.
But really if you’ve given it a go, and it just feels not great, unsafe, icky, whatever. Just trust your gut. Don’t overanalyze it.
And I can confirm that being taught that you should adapt to everyone around and responsible for managing them is actively harmful for you.
> Person B: “…. Hey, sorry to interrupt, but the story in my head is that you think owning that number is part of my job, and now you’re upset with me, or you think I’m incompetent at my job.”
Depending on the exact phrasing and group and company dynamics, I'd be worried a bit by saying something like this because Person A might think I'm trying to push off work or responsibility for some metric that I'm tangentially responsible for.
Being polite is professional and shows mutual respect; IMO it implies an intention to build trust.
Affecting the trappings of friendliness or even loose intimacy in a professional setting or any setting where the relationship is in a rough spot has a strong chance of coming off as disingenuous.
> Say "please" and "thank you"... use emojis...
I'll add to this one -- use exclamation points!
It's actually ridiculous how effective all these little things are.
In my experience, men, engineers, and especially engineers who are men tend to think of this as unnecessary fluff. They often decline to add these little social niceties because to them, they sound inauthentic.
That's not a character flaw or anything! You have every right to feel that way. I do think it is just categorically wrong, though.
I don't know a better way to say it, but: you should really just start doing this. Even if it feels weird to you, it is incredible the degree to which it eases text-based interactions. Even if you aren't noticing it, I promise that other people are.
An exclamation point from a partner at a law firm... probably hits a little different!
But in more informal communication, I think exclamation points are good because they help convey tone and energy in a way that is often lacking. It helps break up a message that can otherwise feel flat and cold.
The same message ending in an exclamation point would have been substantially less nerve-wracking :grimacing:
I know I forget this. There have been numerous times even here on HN where people have thought I was being critical or argumentative when that wasn't remotely what I was trying to communicate.
Maybe another application for LLMs? "Conversation softener"
The more literal I make my sentences, the more easily I can unequivocally communicate a single meaning.
I don't think it's a good writing technique to adopt, and I cannot wait until tonality and humour returns to global conversations by default.
Usually you can rely on knowing what the person likes and their taste to effectively communicate nuance.
Not as easy to do lately. The 'globalism culture' has waned and there's not much common ground to relate to across countries and cultures.
In the absence of being able to do a voice call for an initial impression (e.g. if someone needs immediate help and I'm not available to do a call, or if it's someone I don't expect to need to talk to again in the future), the best strategy I've found is to directly state my good intentions. When I've had one-off discussions with support engineers at my current job to try to help them figure out a customer issue, I often start off by saying something like "I definitely can help you with this issue! If I'm slow to respond or accidentally miss some piece of information, it's totally fine to ping me again as much as needed; I might have to temporarily stop focusing on helping you to deal with other stuff that comes my way, but if I haven't said otherwise, you can assume that any prolonged radio silence on my end is from me forgetting rather than not wanting to help still :)". Even though this doesn't specifically address the idea of messages sounding more stern than intended, my experience is that being able to assure someone of good faith in general will help prevent any misunderstandings later on, regardless of the specific circumstances.
I don't see many doctors and lawyers using real time IM like slack etc., which is generally a lot more conversational.
I use emojies in slack, but I wouldn't use them in emails.
Textbook example is the recent fiasco over at Linus Tech Tips, where they even used an emoji in an email to Billet Labs saying they "accidentally" auctioned off Billet's stuff. Anyone worth their paycheck doesn't use emojis in business communiques.
I snorted at that; thank you
If it's actual business communications, no emojis.
What matters isn't the medium, it's the context concerning the communication.
People who punctuate with smileys seems odd and forced to me.
Or when they correct things, "Hey all you need to do is X,Y,Z here here and here :-)<emoji>" Idk that bothers me.
This article linked here that were talking about was like a perfect example of what seems to me fake corporate emoji use that comes off weird.
Imagine being in a spot to review a new hire's PR and you've barely interacted with them before this encounter.
A reply of "Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;)" is extremely hostile in my mind. That phrasing is already over the top horrendous but the ;) amplifies it by 10x.
As for a breakdown of why I think it's horrendous:
"Your method" <-- You're already tying it directly to them
"technically" <-- An unnecessary word, it's adding salt to the wound and makes you come off as arrogant
"Next time" <-- Majorly condescending
"Try xyz instead" <-- A bit direct
"It's more efficient" <-- At least it describes the 'why' but there's 100 other ways to say this
";)" <-- Keyser Söze tier ruthlessness
like it or not, you are temporarily in a position of power when you are a required reviewer on someone else's change. they need to satisfy you to move their ticket into the "done" column, and you both know it. rather than dance around this uncomfortable situation with soft wordings, just focus on making it clear what is mandatory and what is optional.
But that's making a PR comment into a meeting, which is something I'd kinda dread and want to avoid.
That said, I agree that this
> Your method technically works but next time try xyz instead. It's more efficient. ;)
is awful. But it's not just the use of an emoticon. It's that it's the wrong emoticon.
> this works, but xyz would be better (more efficient) :)
Would be a bit ambiguous in tone, but I think at least invites an optimistic reading as well.
For me I'd rather the niceties in a PR (as well as proposals to meet) live in a comment at the beginning or end of a PR. Individuak requests for specific changes within a PR review should be clear and simple, not bogged down in formal crap or fluff, imo.
Even if it's a new hire that you may not have met yet beyond a hello in Slack?
At the same time, I would feel bad if I found out that I had really distressed a new hire in a code review. And I do try to soften things when I say something that I anticipate might be perceived as harsh in a way that I don't intend. (I use emoji a lot, I DM people, and I tend not to use standalone sentences that end in periods except in email. I use parentheticals and qualifiers, make jokes, etc.) I do schedule meetings to go over things including criticisms/problems/objections, but only when I feel like it would be faster and more natural, or I think it's really essential that I make a realtime demand on someone's attention to get their input.
I really hate to make such a clichéd and usually flawed argument, but can you imagine the reverse going down well? And if the male cohort (to continue this stereotype/generalisation/simplification) don't like it, it's only a 'social nicety' for the rest right? It's not at all obvious to me that that should be a goal.
It's a lot easier to have your diverse group 'transmit' in the way they each prefer than it is to invert and have them use the others' preference - and it's not clear that that's better anyway? Especially if you're aiming for equity on the team, in which event it would be arbitrary, so why not go for easy.
But really I think people are so diverse in personality and communication style that, especially on a people-you-actually-work-with sized team, gender is irrelevant even if you're correct about its link to exclamation marks, not least because there'll be so much else besides them.
Something I have been doing semi-consciously is using question marks more, even though it was grammatically a statement. Sort of: I'm not ordering you to do this thing (I'm not in a position to anyway but maybe that's not clear) I'm just pretty confident in this, but you should feel able to correct or 'challenge' me.
E.g. (code review context)
I don't think we should wazzle the foobar here, because the splines aren't reticulated until L94.
I don't think we should wazzle the foobar here, the splines aren't reticulated until L94?One question, though: do you think it would make the rest of your comment materially worse communication if you added just one excessively positive but non-load-bearing sentence at the beginning? Maybe something like “That’s a good perspective to bring!”
Maybe that’s not the way you communicate most sincerely, the way it is for me and others. Maybe I sound insincere to you right now, in which case, please do say so!
But all else being equal, if you knew that that single change would make me and others materially more receptive to the rest of your comment, would you consider just… doing it anyways, out of pure self-interest?
Just food for thought :)
If we can be honest with one another though, your comment reads to me as not just insincere, but condescending. This might be cultural more than ..'genderal' - I was hearing echoes of 'thank you so much! You're so welcome!' familiar from even the most mundane interactions in the US. (It's quite jarring when you say 'thanks', for having been sold something in a shop say, expecting to leave it at that, to be told you're so welcome.)
What I was intending to get at above was that if I have a duty to communicate with you as you'd like to be communicated with(!), then surely you would also want to reciprocate? If there are just these two 'communication personas' on the team, and they're evenly split, isn't it a lot of effort for nothing, aren't we better off using what makes most sense to us personally, since just as many others agree as disagree anyway?
But the problem is that the flow between those personas is not bidirectional.
Again, generalizing a lot here, but let's call them Cold and Warm personas.
If a Cold receives a Warm message, generally speaking the worst they might feel is that the other person is being inauthentic. In my experience, what usually happens is that they just filter out all the niceties as extraneous and get on with their day. As time goes on, they won't necessarily change their communications or relationship with that person -- after all, they're still getting what they need from them.
On the other hand, if a Warm receives a Cold message -- if they notice a pattern of receiving Cold messages -- they might take that as standoffishness or outright hostility. Even if it's not that negative, the Warm simply won't build as much trust as they otherwise might. They aren't getting what they need.
So in this scenario, if everyone communicates as they naturally would, Colds don't notice anything wrong, while Warms feel like they're actively missing out on something important to them.
I would also note that, again in my experience, most people who describe themselves as Cold communicators ("I don't want fluff, just communicate directly with me") actually really appreciate people who communicate with lots of social niceties. They respond to them more quickly, they're willing to explain misconceptions, and so on. They just don't think it's because of communication style.
not a big deal either way, I can muster up a few friendly greetings on my way into the office every day, and the Warms I encounter could also try to read the room a little better. I just don't agree that the impact is as asymmetric as you say.
You know, this might be challenging to hear... I think there is such an expectation. And along the lines of what 'ketzo said above, I kind of think it's a categorically good expectation.
The only thing you might be missing, not because you're not socially sensitive, but just because it's non-native communication to you, is that those people genuinely care. The expectation isn't that you'll respond with a cheery reply-- it's that you'll respond with care.
What I might put on the table for you is, what if you think about it as replying in kind, rather than in form? If someone says something cheerily nice to you, you don't have to say "omg thank you!! :D". You can just say "Thank you.", from the heart, however you say it when you really mean it.
And yeah, some people will still take that as you being unkind. And if you mean it, that means they're the socially insensitive ones. They're the ones who don't really care! You don't owe them anything more.
But... I think you might be surprised at how many people really are willing to meet you exactly where you are, as long as you really do care.
> The only thing you might be missing, not because you're not socially sensitive, but just because it's non-native communication to you, is that those people genuinely care. The expectation isn't that you'll respond with a cheery reply-- it's that you'll respond with care.
I will genuinely reflect on this, but my initial reaction is that I still don't agree. I think context may be important here.
I am going to work for a very specific reason: to complete enough tasks between 9am and 5pm so that I do not have to stay until 6, 7, or 8pm. I don't have a choice on this; my employer requires my physical presence in the office X days a week, and I am still figuring out how to maintain the same level of output that I achieved during WFH. "connection" is not something I seek at the office (among other things, I am in an unusual situation where 0% of my org actually works at the location I am assigned to). to be very frank, I am only there for the money, and I don't welcome distractions from that goal.
outside of work is a different story. in that context I basically agree with you, so I won't restate what you said.
I will leave you with one idea though: the concept of "peace". peace is what I feel when I walk from the metro stop to my office with my earbuds in. it is the last moment in my work day (before my commute home) when I can just exist. this is what people are disturbing with their niceties, genuinely felt or otherwise. I don't expect the entire world to conform to my way of being, I just don't agree that mine is categorically worse in the specific context of work.
And I genuinely appreciate that. Your care does shine through in those words. To me, you don’t need to say more… I don’t desire to be agreed with more than I desire peace for your life.
You’ve said you don’t seek “connection” at the office, and without knowing exactly what that means to you, I can’t assume that you’re seeking it here either. So, take this as you will:
You made me feel listened to. To me, that’s enough. Thank you.
(And yes, I’d probably put an emoji here if I could, chosen to emphasize gentleness and compassion. Likely a leaf, a sprig, or one of the non-romantic flowers. To me, this all feels so heavy without it, and lightening the words would undercut them.
Maybe a sparkle… idk. I wouldn’t normally think about it, but it seems important to say out loud, here.
When you read this, maybe you can picture a little flower, just meant to help you believe that I really do care how what I’ve said makes you feel.)
Dropping a follow-up comment for future data scientists:
Take a closer look at this one! Possible outlier. Check out how the root thread hasn’t really risen to the top of the list — that usually means a lot of people didn’t like the form of it, or disagreed with its self-referential opinion.
And but so also check out your sentiment scores on this thread— the grandparent is overtly a bit snide, not in a mean spirited way, but just really not agreeing with the root’s thesis that this advice leads to more productive engagement. Make sure you scored that correctly!
Then, what does your sentiment analysis have to say about the engagement here as compared to other threads? I have a prediction, obviously, and if I’m still around I’d love to read the paper :)
But in complete honesty, hedging around it any more than that would have felt insincere to me. And in exchange I got sincere feedback! So really, I’m just doing things your way, and I’ve seen the benefit of it :)
With that said, for your future reference: if you hadn’t said “Interesting!” first, I wouldn’t be engaging charitably right now— I’d be debating whether to engage at all. Based on the next sentence I’m guessing you meant it more as a way to call my sincerity bluff, but I’m telling you it fucking works. Might be an idea to keep around?
To your parenthetical: One other thing to keep in mind is that those employees (I’ve been one) have to talk to terse, grumpy people all day long, and even if it’s not reciprocated, that can be a way to carve out a little moment of real human kindness. I’d keep some weight on the possibility that, sometimes, for a moment, they do just genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day.
I know there’s probably no way I can now convince you that I genuinely hope you have a good rest of the day, so, uh… take care?
But I think you've landed on choosing your own way, when really you should try and match the vocal tone of the other person. After all the point of communicating is to get the other person receptive to your point.
And this goes both ways, I think overly perky and chipper people need to understand introverts and low-energy communicators, and match their tone as well.
If you’re invested in getting something out of a conversational partner, it’s obviously best to write in a way that sounds like a thought they, themselves, could have had— in fact, are having. And contra 'ketzo’s original point, I deeply appreciate that so many we-have-to-say-mostly male tech stakeholders purposely don’t massage their language that much, and thereby make their brains that much easier to hijack.
I bring my effusively positive personality to HN largely because I don’t have any real motive or theory of change, other than possibly making it a slightly more comfortable environment for people who will read my comments precisely as written.
Oh, I’m so curious if this comment sounds more sincere to the reader :)
If you want to make discussion feels like a friendly situation, using emoticon can emphasis the emotion.
Your post was thought provoking, something I appreciate. I wondered about the above statement.
Are you saying that "receivers" should be expected to expend more effort than "transmitters"?
Wouldn't it be optimal to try to meet in the middle, the sweet spot of easy-as-possible transmission and best-as-possible reception, both sides putting in some effort?
My thinking is that communication is about a meeting of the minds, and anything either side can do to make that better helps.
And at one age, I got popular, muscular. That’s long gone now, but when I was, I could write whatever I wanted and people didn’t find it offensive. I found it funny when I discovered that people no longer told me off for what I said, or wrote. Now at my age (and weight), I notice again people telling me that I didn’t speak properly of whoever, I ask them what I said, they say it’s not the words, it’s not the tone, it’s not the smile, it’s the intent.
It’s almost as if engineer-men were the socialy lowlys, on which people could train their ability to explain how to others how they ought to behave better.
It's about who said it and their status.
Your status lowered and all of the sudden your "tone" was off.
A: Hey, it looks like there is this and that issue that is caused by one of your submissions. Can you fix it?
B: Sure
A: Thanks!
A is not super duper thankful or about to bring you a chocolate. That is neither sarcasm nor fakery, just normal communication.
"You have every right to feel the way that you do, even though I think what you feel is wrong?" Seriously?
Is that sarcasm? Trolling?
Ha, I've got a funny anecdote about exclamation marks. My now girlfriend (she wasn't at the time) asked me once why I was always yelling in text.
I had to ask her what she meant, and she said I used exclamations so much she thought I was always angry.
So I guess becareful with using them too often, it could be taken the wrong way also :).
The cousin took that as yelling and anger not the (what I consider obvious) intended enthusiasm. He didn't talk to her for a really long time and when they finally talked about it he didn't accept the answer and stayed angry.
People are odd.
Not necessarily, I’ve worked with engineers/men who used emojis as a passive aggressive response, goes like “oh no, not like that, it’s XYZ :)”
Person A: I turned on the PC and have a blue screen.
Person B: No you can’t do that, you have to plug Y first then turn it on :)!
Or something along the lines, I can’t remember an example right now but I’ve seen it firsthand, give a look at this it might gives you some more context
https://www.wbez.org/stories/the-rundown-since-when-are-smil...
Personally, I’m rarely if ever so excited about something at work where I’d feel the need to add “!”. I’m sorry but I don’t get pumped about things that often at the place I have to be at so I can afford to feed my family.
If I use “!” at work it’s never about work related conversation, and is almost exclusively used to show excitement for or to congratulate a coworker on a work or personal achievement.
Short of celebrating with a coworker in their excitement for something, using “!” in the context like what you’re suggesting, ie “Sure, I’d love to help!” feels insincere for me to say, because I’m not actually excited, and personally I know that my coworkers who knew me in the slightest would also read that as insincere, possibly passive aggressive, or just kiss ass. We don’t need to be enthusiastic about doing shit at a place we wouldn’t choose to be at if we didn’t have to, which wastes the biggest parts of our lives.
Fun stuff: I initially thought it would talk about a more technical aspect of trust and communication (e.g how do you have two services chat when you don't trust transport), and was expecting something like Byzantine faults or two generals problem, and such topics.
But that made me wonder, are there any algorithms and techniques from the computer science world, related to communication in low trust, that could be retrofitted into the real world? Stuff like shared secrets, ACKs and such?
Don't tell me that's not what you said, because it absolutely is. Is it really that shocking that you don't always get much more respect than you give?
At best your opinion is incomplete. It overlooks that people often take faked niceties quite bad. Like the parent post. And are not free but require mental effort. With humans not really doing multi tasking. And while a positive attitude is healthier all around, we are talking work environment here. I shouldnt need to worry if somebody thinks a short and precise "Yes!" could be impolite or sarcastic. Its an accurate response and i shouldnt have to worry about babysitting your interpretation. Seeing as we are all working together give me the benefit of the doubt. Its as simple as that. And if you figure that to be misplaced, do inform me as i might be overlooking something. That wont be a difficult conversation, i will be grateful.
edit: I would also be really worried how likely difficult conversations will be in such an environment. No amount of sugarcoating makes you fine with me kicking your favorite feature. And it might need kicking, no matter how attached you are.
edit1: In case it helps, the reason people take fake niceties in the workplace so badly is because it selfishly increases the required effort from everyone else to meet the bar you already set rather high. When considering what is acceptable people now have to plan around you lying. Instead of cooperation you are getting managed because you require too much effort and dont say what you want for which reasons.
Downvotes make a lot of sense seeing as he responded to the wrong post (ketzo was the post referenced)
At that point we are discussing intention (stupidity vs malice) which makes it little better then analyzing for sarcasm. Benefit of the doubt goes both ways and the most charitable take is bad enough.
Passive aggression - I am intentionally trying to insult you or be condescending to you or stanf in your way while keeping plausible deniality.
Intention matters. The above sentence does nit sound like someone pretending to be nice or think well of you. It sounds like someone telling you they don't think much of you, while trying to make it harder for you to address the disagreement.
I think it boils down to what kind of costs are at stake. False positive for negative intention leads to conflict and breakdown of cooperation, while entertaining a passive aggressive person increases the burden on you in favor of continued cooperation and additional information.
While a direct stop is beneficial for short games, reducing false positives is beneficial for productive long games and comes at only temporary costs.
Or differently put, while stupidity is not always the better explanation then malice, assuming stupidity first can be beneficial regardless. If people are then unwilling or unable to fix stupid it becomes another discussion. But those false positives sum up quickly.
Moreover, the regular insults and unaddressed put downs will accumulate. If you accept communication like that, over time you will loose confidence or at least become more passive and weak at asserting your needs or opinions.
Intention matters for the response. If you treat passive aggression or thinly veiled insult as something genuine or harmless fake compliment, you are in for a very bad time. Because you will be target of more and more of it. You need to stop or adress the dynamic, directly or indirectly.
> Moreover, the regular insults and unaddressed put downs will accumulate.
> If you treat passive aggression or thinly veiled insult as something genuine or harmless fake compliment, you are in for a very bad time. Because you will be target of more and more of it.
is working as intended. We arent talking schoolyard but workplace. You are checking if cooperation is possible so you have to spend less effort on managing the people around you and your reaction to them. Getting a clear signal on that means you can go over to actual conflict if you enjoy that and use some levers. Or just get a better environment so you can focus on work.
The image that presents for third parties is another issue and brings us back to short vs long games. That you shouldnt be reacting is besides the point. You arent describing a professional, let alone cooperative environment if they reward pointless personal short term conflict dragging everyone down to that level. And even if you are stuck in a dog kernel, your approach isnt without its own dangers. Goating somebody into overreacting is a tried and true strategy to make them look bad / unstable.
In the end defaulting on personal workplace conflict means you opt into playing emotional games. Which i see no reason to do, especially as idiots doing this have home field advantage. If they really made a decision for conflict and you fancy joining in make sure you have the advantage and mop the floor with them. They arent all too smart after all. But cooperation will be off the table, you will have to constantly mince every word.
edit: This is really about job description. Do you really want to be a dog trainer?
In my experience, both direct and observed, setting boundaries and stoponf these minimizes issues and games in the long term.
Ignoring these, being doormat, acting naive means that you will be target of them more and more.
Your approach results in an overall reduction in cooperation potential for the sake of managing the excess of toxic actors short term who will be a constant burden anyway. Even if you keep them from acting out, you still have to work around them. By being given the benefit of the doubt and getting engaged towards cooperation people are pushed on either higher or lower levels. Either the negative behavior piles up or you manage to open actual communication. It tells you who you need to be concerned about and what motivates them. Its a filter that looks at peoples intention and ability. Which makes it possible to differentiate malice from stupidity. Which reduces the overall burden immensely as problems from stupidity often stem from misunderstandings and reactions turning into cycles because people get emotionally involved in a conflict.
Some coworkers not wanting to make the journey towards a professional work environment doesnt mean its not a beneficial thing to do either way. Letting such people drag everyone down is the worst case, even if its done to prevent short term direct conflict.
It reads like a guide to not giving the wrong impression and how not to annoy someone over a chat system.
If you don’t like having to use these techniques, respect and appreciation also goes a long way. Instead of judging them as “thin-skinned colleagues who need little pats on the head”, maybe try getting to know them and how their childhood might have played a role, or how their personality benefits them or the community in certain ways.
For example, maybe you see it as a chance to practice gratitude, which is a virtue in many cultures.
I'm not sure how much it helps when the low trust is one sided.
No second chances, ever.
I find this to be an unrealistic standard. We all have lapses given the right moment (attention, tiredness, distraction). The question is do people comprehend the problem and are willing to work on it/ adjust for it?
Differently put, the issue isnt just one of detecting problems but detecting those that cant be fixed/adjusted for. Which means putting resources into debugging how they appear for which reasons. Seeing as walking away is costly, that can often be a worth while investment.
This is less about trusting and more about valuing functioning team relationships. Benefit of the doubt is a good strategy for team building, at the very least for information gathering.
e.g.
I want to say something, but I am having a hard time with it.
I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it.
I need to tell you something and I am anxious about your reaction.
… or check in afterwards.
I kind agree with you on your reading of the subtexts, here, but in a conversation, I just don't think these sentiments come off that way.
Rather, we tend to interpret them as noise that lets the other person know that a difficult topic is coming, instead of just dunking them in head first.
"Hey, I wanted to let you know about some bad news. one-breath pause <bad news here>" has always worked better for me, as both the deliverer and the recipient, than "Hey, <bad news>."
Basically what I'm saying is that you could definitely read into these suggested phrases, as you have; but they play out way differently in a real-life conversation.
But I agree with you about up-front acknowledgements of hard conversations. They're the workplace equivalent of "we need to talk". I'm an anxious person by nature, so "we need to talk" is about the most painful thing you can say to me: my mind will immediately project out the worst possible case, and the relief I get when your real issue is nowhere nearly that bad isn't going to fully absorb the cortisol the opening generates for me.
Fortunately, the article anticipates this, and you've misread it a bit. Notice the headline for the follow-up is "OR check in afterwards", not "AND check in afterwards".
Checking in afterwards is the right alternative when you're working with me. It might not be with other people.
And, the straightforward answer to the question your comment asks: yes. Yes, you have to make them feel better about it. When you're working on a team, part of your responsibility as a team member is to keep relationships working smoothly.
To put it in Reddit parlance: if someone steps in it with you, and then asks you to make them feel better about it afterwards, and you get irritated about the check-in: YTA. Not ESH: YTA. They did the right thing by (1) being concerned they handled the initial interaction poorly and (2) following up on it to clear the air. You'd have punished them for doing the right thing, which is worse than handling the initial interaction poorly!
The whole thing is just making it more about the counterparty, like they're the real victim for having unfortunately to give you this bad news - it's not their fault you did the bad thing after all!
I'm afraid the Reddit parlance is lost on me, what's YTA & ESH?
Everyone sucks here
“I’m going to tell you something thats unsubstantiated about you, which you’ll be obligated to be defensive about, so dont respond at all, and I dont want to talk about it”
its that absolving of any responsibility that gets me
And I think the intent is not to absolve responsibility, but to specifically acknowledge it. But it depends on how authentic it feels, which may be a problem if we're building trust.
There's a difference between saying "I have something to say, but I don’t know how you’ll take it." and "I have something to say, but I don’t want you to be upset." ... where the first one is letting you know of potential trouble ahead, and the second one is demanding you react in a certain way.
You're not going to like this, but
Bad news -
'I need to tell you something' [if you really must, but come on...] you're not going to like
I don't know how you're going to take this
and a million miles better than:
I am anxious you are going to take what I have to say poorly [or similar]
Do... people... talk like that?
It's pretty complicated to start the subject from the other end, like "You seem to think I'm horrible at this job, but I quite disagree"
Putting those things out clearly in the open during difficult discussions can be incredibly powerful, awkward though it may be to achieve.
Nonviolent Communication is the gold standard text on how to use this style of communication, and for people like myself who didn't learn how to communicate about emotions as children, it can be life-changing.