[HN Gopher] How to communicate when trust is low without digging...
___________________________________________________________________
How to communicate when trust is low without digging yourself into
a deeper hole
Author : zdw
Score : 164 points
Date : 2023-08-17 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (charity.wtf)
(TXT) w3m dump (charity.wtf)
| nelsondev wrote:
| I wish this article wasn't helpful. But I find myself using these
| tactics around thin-skinned colleagues, who need little pats on
| the head.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| Gen Z?
| tptacek wrote:
| We're all thin-skinned at times, which is why this article's
| take is so valuable, and it's helpful to just be careful with
| everybody, or at least have a set of tools ready to deploy if
| you manage to step in it, or someone manages to step in it with
| you.
| testfoobar wrote:
| This is all well and good advice.
|
| 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.
| screye wrote:
| Good will has to be rebuilt. If someone has exhausted all
| goodwill, then your relationship should take a transactional
| form. Transactional relationships don't have to be malicious.
| They're just all 'over the table'. I ask you to do X, have you
| done X ?
|
| 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.
| llamaLord wrote:
| Yeah I think it's important to note that these techniques are
| for situations where trust has broken down due to something
| external, not due to a fundamental issue with one of the people
| involved.
|
| This stuff will never help with narcissistic ass holes.
| UniverseHacker wrote:
| Yes, this advice is counter-productive at best for dealing with
| a narcissist. They will re-frame your efforts to be friendly
| and not abrasive into an admission of guilt over whatever the
| problem at hand is. In those cases, if you can't avoid
| communicating, just be neutral and stick to plainly stating the
| facts of whatever you must talk about.
| vonwoodson wrote:
| If you're dealing with someone who has a mental illness then
| "the rules" are different. Folks throw words like "Narcissism"
| around when they don't really mean it. Communicating with
| someone with a mental illness is difficult at the best of times
| and you should not hold yourself to such a high standard that
| _you_ will be good at communicating with them; It 's not your
| responsibility to be able to handle every situation, especially
| from reading a blog post.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I do it all the time. There's no "rule book" on it.
|
| 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.
| glonq wrote:
| How timely. My boss just crucified a co-worker today in our
| meeting and I think something like this could help mend things.
|
| Yes, my boss never heard of " _praise in public criticize in
| private_ ". Welcome to _working with a hot-blooded eastern
| european_
| breakingwalls wrote:
| Very timely for me as well, have been having tough time with my
| partner especially about how unfriendly and critical I sound,
| even though my intentions are for general improvement and well
| being around home.
| [deleted]
| TylerE wrote:
| There is little less welcome than unsolicited "advice",
| especially coming from the person and place that are supposed
| to be the refuge from all the shit going on in the world.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| Hot blooded Eastern Europeans can learn, too. You do know the
| difference and concept. If it's safe, educate.
| gottorf wrote:
| Management by perkele!
| belval wrote:
| I just finished reading the culture map (an HN recommendation!)
| and it was actually very eye opening. This is not to excuse bad
| behaviour in the workplace, but it's entirely possible that
| depending on where he comes from in eastern europe that's just
| how tough feedback is given and he didn't perceive it as a
| "crucifiction".
| function_seven wrote:
| I felt slighted once when a former CEO of mine _didn 't_
| lambast me on our weekly call. I took it to mean that I
| wasn't important enough to get the dressing down he was known
| for.
|
| (I mean, I was still relieved to avoid it! Just thought it
| was funny to feel disrespected because I got gentle treatment
| :)
| ketzo wrote:
| > TRY TO SOUND FRIENDLY.
|
| > 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.
| tayo42 wrote:
| Surprised to see emoji. I feel like those almost always come
| across insincere when they're not expected. Idk why, maybe I'm
| the odd one.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Not sure. I always use them as a stand in for facial
| expression.
| TylerE wrote:
| That's a cultural thing. In many cultures exclamation points
| come across as demands/accusations, not emphasis.
| ketzo wrote:
| That's fair, I'm writing from a West-Coast-USA-tech-company
| perspective.
|
| 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.
| akomtu wrote:
| How do lawyers, doctors and actual engineers communicate? Do
| they use emojis?
| jcul wrote:
| I would say a lot more verbal conversations and a lot more
| verbose longer form written communication, where the tone is
| formal anyway.
|
| 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.
| jasonmp85 wrote:
| [dead]
| JohnFen wrote:
| I think people forget that the written word has a tendency to
| come across stern unless you make an effort to soften it.
|
| 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.
| ketzo wrote:
| It's the easiest thing in the world to forget -- after all,
| _you_ know how it 's supposed to sound! How could they
| _possibly_ misinterpret your _very clear_ message? ;)
| m0llusk wrote:
| The Center for Nonviolent Communication has some potentially
| useful ideas about this: https://www.cnvc.org/
|
| 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.
| Seattle3503 wrote:
| It is interesting you mention interruption, because the
| original NVC book endorses certain kinds of interruptions.
| "Would you rather have someone pretend to listen, or to
| interrupt?"
| toasted-subs wrote:
| [flagged]
| toasted-subs wrote:
| Silence me, kill me, murder me, bury me, but for the love of
| god don't ask why. Proves your stupidity to me.
| apsurd wrote:
| Great read. Another helpful cue I give myself is "The opt-in".
| Always give your partner the chance to opt-in to the
| conversation.
|
| 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?"
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| This is good advice. :)
|
| I'm not sure how much it helps when the low trust is one sided.
| [deleted]
| OJFord wrote:
| I thought I was going to like this, but other than 'Give people
| the opening to do better' section, the _advised_ interactions
| seem not great to me?
|
| 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.
|
| are (1) making me anxious while I wait for you to say whatever it
| is; (2) absolving you of any responsibility for what it is or how
| I feel about it before I even know what it is?
| ... or check in afterwards.
|
| so now you've given me bad news, poor feedback, whatever - and I
| have to make you feel better about it?
| tptacek wrote:
| I unreservedly love this article and found a lot of it valuable
| despite decades of career experience stepping in it with
| coworkers (and vice versa).
|
| 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!
| OJFord wrote:
| I didn't misread it, at least I did read it as 'or', I just
| don't like that either. Yes I _will_ reply Hey no sweat yeah
| just doing your job cheers whatever - but it 's definitely
| making me feel even worse than I already was about whatever
| the negative thing was you had to say to me in the first
| place.
|
| 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?
| tayo42 wrote:
| You're the asshole
|
| Everyone sucks here
| tptacek wrote:
| (There's a whole, very popular, subreddit dedicated to
| adjudicating "NTA", "ESH", "YTA", and "NAH" in a variety
| of user-submitted scenarios. It's a hoot.)
| tptacek wrote:
| Team members should reflect on interactions and give a
| quick sanity check to whether they may have come across
| rude, condescending, or aggrieved. And, if they have to
| ask, they should ask. You, as someone who shares the role
| of "team member", should be prepared to hear those check-
| ins in the spirit they're intended: as acknowledgements
| that everybody agrees that it's not OK to be rude or
| passive-aggressive. You don't have to absolve people: if
| they were rude, you can say "thanks, I did take that
| comment as a little hostile, and I'm glad it wasn't just
| me."
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I met this toxic nutcase who had made up a concept like this,
| it essentially boiled down to
|
| "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
| ketzo wrote:
| In theory, I'm with you; in practicality, I have _always_ found
| that literally just a one-sentence lead-in -- even if it 's not
| perfect -- goes a long way towards a better conversation.
|
| 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.
| [deleted]
| wenc wrote:
| I like that this is battle tested advice derived from a real
| context (between the author and co founder).
|
| 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.
| switch007 wrote:
| I'm wondering it that was all done over text (slack/teams etc)
| and could have been aided by picking up the phone?
|
| It reads like a guide to not giving the wrong impression and how
| not to annoy someone over a chat system.
| softwaredoug wrote:
| My number one advice for difficult people is try not to
| internalize their behavior. It's not about you or anything you
| did. It's a "them" problem.
|
| 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.
| morley wrote:
| This is such a great blog post. I wish I had read this ten years
| ago.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| From experience CC advice and other similar corp bs techniques
| are like "self defense class" techniques of communication meaning
| they only work if the other party is well meaning and actively
| cooperating. Which is to say they rarely work even if properly
| executed.
| TylerE wrote:
| Sort of like how MMA showed that most of the traditional
| martial arts aren't actually good except as exercise.
| tptacek wrote:
| If your team is mostly comprised of people operating in bad
| faith, no advice (other than "disband") is going to help you.
| The premise of this article is that you have a team operating
| in good faith, but with fragile trust, which is a much more
| common problem in startups than a team of vipers.
| redhale wrote:
| I'd say it's more like defensive driving techniques. They are
| not guaranteed to save you from a wreck in all situations, but
| they maximize your chances of getting the best outcome
| possible. But still, sometimes you just get t-boned by a
| lunatic.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-17 23:00 UTC)