[HN Gopher] How to boss without being bossy
___________________________________________________________________
How to boss without being bossy
Author : putzdown
Score : 351 points
Date : 2023-11-10 20:42 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.jeffwofford.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.jeffwofford.com)
| tennisflyi wrote:
| I like the chart and examples. Thanks! I'm going to read over
| theme here in a bit.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| I need you to do it now.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I like this approach - with the extra clarity added
|
| "The trash needs to be taken out because <x>. Can you look after
| that <within timeframe>?"
|
| Clarity: 5/5
|
| Harshness: 1/5
| axlee wrote:
| "Why should I be the one to take out the trash?"
| gardenhedge wrote:
| Let's assume the context is a boss asking the employee to do
| something that is part of the job.
|
| At that point, it's fine to discuss if the workload can be
| shared among the team, if appropriate.
| rightbyte wrote:
| "Can you clear out three points of trash mountain til next
| Friday? Five points? No, it is three."
|
| These analogies fail in that the scope of taking out the trash
| is way too clear.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| You're using points here as an estimate of the workload. The
| points in my comment are following the same point system as
| in the article.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| I am intrigued by the downvoters. Can you explain the downvotes
| please?
|
| In my mind it works perfectly at all levels. It's clear and
| direct and it invites feedback.
|
| "As part of our customer satisfaction strategy, we need an
| online portal. Mary, can you take ownership of this stream?"
|
| "We're due to deliver the pie chart feature this week and
| there's still multiple code reviews outstanding. Bob, Dylan and
| Charlie, can you work together and get this done by the end of
| the week?"
|
| "There's a bug affecting two of our top customers. To avoid
| losing them as customers, we will need to get it investigated
| and fixed as a top priority. Jane, can you look into this today
| and give me an update by the end of the day?"
| cmclaughlin wrote:
| Here's how my wife does it...
|
| "Do you want to take out the trash?"
|
| My engineer mind interprets it literally every time :)
|
| Usually I don't mind taking out the trash... but occasionally I
| don't really want to. I have to always translate this to "She
| wants me to take out the trash".
| User23 wrote:
| "No."
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Is the answer from those not yet brainwashed. Aka kids!
| amatecha wrote:
| Yeah, sometimes I respond to those like "well, no, I don't
| _want_ to, but I will if you 'd like". haha :)
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Or. "It's OK i'll take out the trash"
| yCombLinks wrote:
| That makes me so mad! Just put down a checklist and I'll
| gladly do it! Not sure why emotional manipulation needs to
| happen!
| bibabaloo wrote:
| The subtext here is probably that the asking person doesn't
| _want_ to be commanding, much less making checklists. :)
| abenga wrote:
| In this very specific example, I really don't see why
| anyone needs a checklist, or to be reminded. It's your
| household too, you need to know the things that need to be
| done, and do a reasonable share of them.
|
| In the more general "team at work" case, it's also
| straightforward, sit together, define the bucket of work
| that needs doing, distribute it "fairly", and go do it. The
| team leader's job is to get and communicate outside
| stakeholders' needs + the wider org context, not to give
| marching orders.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| That's just not how I view it. Here's the rule. Check if
| the garbage needs to go out every afternoon. Absolutely
| fine. Vs remember if this matters -> torture! I can work
| 100% of the time to make sure the clearly set out
| objectives are met without complaint. Once it becomes
| subjective, I would rather not be involved.
| growingkittens wrote:
| I think their point was "why does someone else have to
| make the checklist for you?"
|
| > Once it becomes subjective
|
| Relationships _are_ subjective. It takes a collaborative
| effort to make them objective. Subjective is the default
| mode.
| danparsonson wrote:
| > In this very specific example, I really don't see why
| anyone needs a checklist, or to be reminded. It's your
| household too, you need to know the things that need to
| be done, and do a reasonable share of them.
|
| Absolutely agree with this but then the adult thing to do
| is not to attempt to manipulate the partner into doing
| the work but either a) fix the situation directly if it's
| a one-off (asking, "would you take out the garbage?" or
| else just doing it), or b) if there is a pattern of
| unfair division of labour in the relationship, raise it,
| discuss it honestly and with intent to find a fair
| solution, and resolve it.
| ndespres wrote:
| What she truly wants is for you to notice that it's full and to
| take it out without being asked.
| jancsika wrote:
| Upshot: you are supposed to take out the trash using a realtime
| scheduler, and the common question means you have missed many
| deadlines!
|
| It's as if you are forcing your spouse to somehow smell a janky
| web page.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Of course, you only got into the situation where you're
| supposed to take out the trash with some fancy realtime
| scheduler because the impulse to spend 6 hours automating a
| 15 second task was too strong to resist....
| jancsika wrote:
| You get into the situation because, in a relationship, a
| stench that lasts past a hard limit will get associated
| with a lot more than the garbage.
| gnicholas wrote:
| Weird, people usually talk favorably about garbage collection
| on HN.
| chrsig wrote:
| Well, it's usually something the environment does for us, not
| that we do for the environment :)
| vacuity wrote:
| As a member of the Rust Evangelism Strike Force, please point
| me to these people so we can have a, _ahem_ , civil
| conversation.
|
| /garfield
| ska wrote:
| This seems a bit superficial, because it concentrates only how
| you communicate an instruction to people.
|
| I suspect, especially in high competence and nominally high trust
| environments like (much of) tech, mostly when people consider a
| superior "bossy" it's not because of the way they communicate
| (though that could contribute) but because they do not trust the
| communication or the motivations behind it, or question why they
| (the boss) are getting involved at all.
|
| To put it another way, if there is a high degree of trust anyway
| you are likely forgiven a harsher communication style, but if the
| the trust isn't there no amount of wordsmithing that will improve
| it.
|
| That being said, poor communication styles _will_ ruffle feathers
| and cause problems, and if you are leading people you should
| learn to do this better. I just don 't think that's at the heart
| of what being considered "bossy" is, so working on it won't
| likely fix that.
| roenxi wrote:
| I'd put that the author hasn't managed people in a
| multicultural team before. It quickly becomes apparent that
| there is a cultural component to communication style that
| changes language expectations by a lot. And at the end of the
| day word choice doesn't matter much.
|
| There is a deeper aspect to watch which is response over time -
| "tracking what does the boss say to me?" as it transforms into
| "What are the consequences later on?". A big part of being
| "bossy" IMO is creating consequences for getting trivial
| instructions wrong.
| kevinmchugh wrote:
| Similarly (and at risk of focusing too much on the example), in
| a high competency and high trust environment, identifying a
| task as quotidian as taking out the trash ought to be pretty
| rare. If you have a bunch of highly capable professionals, they
| shouldn't need commanding and they should be pretty capable of
| keeping their workspace functional.
| goodpoint wrote:
| Not just superficial but even manipulative.
| IsaacL wrote:
| This is a terrible article that rambles on for far too long
| without offering an actually polite way to tell/request someone
| to do something.
|
| These are the best approaches:
|
| 1. "Please take out the trash."
|
| 2. "The trash needs to be taken out. Can you do it?"
|
| 3. (If there are several people around). "The trash needs to be
| taken out. Who can do it?"
|
| Extra consideration:
|
| I'm assuming this refers to a context where there's a prior
| agreement in place that A can tell B what to do (e.g. a business,
| where B signs a contract stating that he has sold X hours/day to
| the organisation). It usually should be unnecessary to bark out
| orders or to beat around the bush -- both are insulting: if B is
| a functioning adult they accept that they work for an
| organisation and so need to complete certain tasks.
|
| However, direct instructions are rarely necessary for knowledge
| workers or highly-skilled professionals. Unless things have
| broken down horribly, they're aware that the success of the
| business they work for will contribute to their own career
| success.
|
| E.g., instead of "you will write unit tests today" or "would you
| mind terribly writing unit tests today?", A would do best saying
| something like "we're introducing too many regressions when we
| change things, we need a better testing strategy -- let's discuss
| our approach to unit testing" and then let the team weigh in with
| their own ideas so they have ownership over whatever is decided.
| brailsafe wrote:
| > "they're aware that the success of the business they work for
| will contribute to their own career success."
|
| If this was commonly true, then it wouldn't also be commonly
| true to feel best served by switching companies every 2 years.
| Other than simply continuing to be employed, but even that's
| tenuous and often volatile.
|
| > "Unless things have broken down horribly"
|
| It's a lucky individual who's never experienced this in their
| career.
| woooooo wrote:
| "Best" has to be subjective here?
|
| My personal favorite, combo of 2 listed, would he "I need X to
| happen"
| timeagain wrote:
| Subjective it must be, if my boss talked like that it would
| give me flashbacks to entitled customers I had working in
| food service.
|
| Edit: to expand, the "I need" language has an implicit
| imperative. Since it is implicit, the listener/employee needs
| to internalize the command, and internalize the idea that the
| bosses "needs" are the employees "wants". Maybe I'm
| psychologizing too much, but I haven't ever met someone who
| talked like that who I could get along with. A baby cries
| when it needs something, mommy responds. As adults we should
| handle our own needs by turning them into actions to fulfill
| them ourselves or requests to have others fulfill them.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| It also suggests people work for the boss and satisfy the
| bosses needs. The boss is a leader and organizer, not a
| master, satisfying the needs of the project/team/company.
|
| "The trash needs to be taken out. (who wants to | can you)
| take responsibility for getting it done?"
| woooooo wrote:
| I'd feel the same way if I heard it in food service.
| Corporate motherfucker who doesn't actually work.
|
| If I hear it in the context of both a knowledge job and a
| high-trust relationship it works way better for me, here is
| the problem and we need it solved.
| lelanthran wrote:
| >> entitled customers I had working in food service.
|
| > I'd feel the same way if I heard it in food service.
| Corporate motherfucker who doesn't actually work.
|
| Hang on, to you, _" We need some paper towels at this
| table"_ equals "Corporate motherfucker who doesn't
| actually work"?
|
| Just how sensitive are you and GP?
|
| I've actually worked in food service, and a table telling
| me _" we need some paper towels at our table"_ didn't
| trigger any negativity in me at all, nevermind the
| extreme PTSD sort of negativity that that sentence
| appears to trigger in you and GP.
|
| TBH, if you're triggered by the phrase _" We need some
| paper towels at this table"_, then you probably have ...
| some sort of condition?
| Aurornis wrote:
| > My personal favorite, combo of 2 listed, would he "I need X
| to happen"
|
| I had a boss who spoke like this: He was too afraid to
| communicate directly, so everything was implied.
|
| Instead of saying "I'm assigning X task to you" we'd have to
| play a game where he'd say "X is really important and it
| needs to be done". Then you had to ask 20 questions to
| extract the actual ask from him:
|
| "Okay great, should I do it"
|
| "If you want, that would be great"
|
| "Cool, I can do it. Is it the highest priority or can it
| wait?"
|
| "Well it's very important, but I don't want to interfere with
| your other work."
|
| "I'm working on task A with tasks B and C next in the queue.
| Where should I prioritize it?"
|
| "Well it's very important. The stakeholders want it done
| soon."
|
| "Okay, how soon? Is there a deadline?"
|
| "I don't like to put deadlines on people, but they're very
| adamant that it gets done soon. It would be good if it was
| done soon"
|
| And so on, until I had spent 15 minutes extracting enough
| clues about what he wanted. He thought he was being extra
| nice by never giving anything resembling an order, but it
| just created confusion for everyone and disappointment when
| we didn't perfectly read his mind.
| zaphirplane wrote:
| Sounds like they didn't exactly know how to prioritize a
| task relative to other tasks. Which could be lack of
| clarity or being pulled in different directions by 3
| different project managers/product owners/dotted lines etc
| or lastly their own manager would be adding 5 new high
| priority tasks a day
|
| Anyone at the end of the days it's literally their role to
| handle the dysfunction and/or understand the products
| richk449 wrote:
| Devils advocate: maybe your boss wanted the team to
| function autonomously, and was avoiding making decisions
| that could be made at your level?
| romanhn wrote:
| #3 is actually unlikely to be effective due to the well-studied
| bystander effect (everyone stands around hoping someone else
| will help). Asking a concrete person is much more likely to get
| it done.
| wavemode wrote:
| Just want to point that the bystander effect (like many
| classic theories in psychology, it seems) could not be
| replicated in a real-world study: https://en.wikipedia.org/wi
| ki/Bystander_effect#Counter_examp...
|
| In real life, many people really do jump in to help when they
| know help is needed.
| sandman008 wrote:
| No OP, but bystander effect is definitely real. *Anecdotal
| example* : got immediate response for my email after
| addressing specific person. This was after repeated appeals
| for help/response to entire team on same email chain.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| > 3. (If there are several people around). "The trash needs to
| be taken out. Who can do it?"
|
| See to me that gives me flashbacks to Target, and that
| disconnected robot voice on the radios:
|
| "Second request, 15 seconds remaining. Who is responding?"
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| Yeah the there is an abstraction level. Even "take out the
| trash" is an abstraction. A lot of this minutiae can be handled
| with coding standards, policies, automated checks and so on. It
| gets "bossy" when say you need someone to do something out of
| the ordinary. Take support calls when they usually don't. That
| is where emotional intelligence needs to kick in. Depending on
| culture and context it could be anything from "You are on the
| phones Frank" to "Sorry guys we don't normally ask this but..."
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Not only is "take out the trash" an abstraction, it's
| actually the _wrong_ abstraction. Wrong abstractions are the
| mirror image of "technically correct": they're the _worst_
| kind of wrong.
|
| "Take out the trash" is a well known, predictable, and well
| defined solution to a well known, well defined, and expected
| issue. If I were your manager, I'm sure you wouldn't mind me
| saying to you "@quickthrower2, I'd like you to lead the retro
| next week," would you? I don't want to put words in your
| mouth or anything, but if you're anything like 97.3% of
| people _I 've_ worked with, _that 's_ not going to faze you
| in the slightest, provided you feel like you have the skills
| to do the task. It's a checkbox.
|
| Contrast that with "@quickthrower2, you need to reticulate
| the splines on this project." If "reticulating the splines"
| is a nontrivial task that doesn't have a well defined
| solution, that's going to land entirely differently than
| something like leading a retro. They're totally different
| scenarios, totally different contexts, totally different
| expected results.
| majkinetor wrote:
| "Please" often repeated, is just noise. If you can't take it
| without it, you are not an adult and I don't want you in my
| team.
| BryanLegend wrote:
| Even better is just "The trash needs to be taken out." It's
| better because it respects the person's agency.
|
| Source: How to Talk So Kids Will Listen & Listen So Kids Will
| Talk - https://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-
| Listen/dp/14516638...
| TylerE wrote:
| Your #3 is just begging for the bystander effect. Giving vague,
| non-directed instructions to a crowd virtually guarantees that
| no one does it.
| xepriot wrote:
| Neuroticising over how to word your commands (polite requests) is
| slave mindset, and such a person who does this is not a 'leader'.
| What makes a leader is not how you word things. But almost nobody
| walking around in corporate america has an inspiringly
| authoritative personality, and you can't make yourself into one
| very easily, so retarded articles like this are the best they can
| do.
|
| If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this', the
| follower actually wants to do it and does not care about how
| carefully you handle their feelings.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| >If you are a leader, then when you simply say 'go do this',
| the follower actually wants to do it and does not care about
| how carefully you handle their feelings.
|
| Nope, communicating with humans is the same art whether you
| think you are a leader or not. Some cultures have a strong
| sense of hierarchy, which in their business interactions is
| expressed in the petty, demeaning game of "act like a sycophant
| insect to those above you and treat those below you as pawns to
| be commanded", which has the same effect as what you're
| describing, but civilized people tend to reject that.
|
| Edit: Note that this is not a defense of the article, which
| starts off incorrect at sentence one. It's easy to confuse the
| concept of a _command hierarchy_ , like a military, and a
| _cooperation hierarchy_ , which is the way a healthy business
| operates (though this is perhaps the minority of businesses,
| because a command hierarchy is more effective if your employees
| mostly don't give a shit or are miserable or incompetent, any
| of which problems may or may not be their fault).
| financltravsty wrote:
| Not all humans are equal. Some still retain the spirit of
| wonder and awe -- dare I say zest -- that allows them to find
| inspiration. Whether that is through internal or external
| means, they still can be impelled to act by the right
| stimulus.
|
| To be civilized is to bend to genteel sensibilities; and
| nothing inspiring ever comes from that. Logically sound,
| rational, and convincing sure; but never inspiring.
| throwaway914 wrote:
| I agree. You don't dispense vitriol, but people are way more
| willing to follow instructions from a perceived leader than we
| tend to believe. It's not worth splitting hairs to finaggle
| every word to sound delicate and kind. If you assume authority,
| and you aren't outright malevolent, you can usually tell
| someone:
|
| I need you to take out the trash.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if
| they are not actually talking to me myself.
|
| But more seriously:
|
| Ensure people know what and why something is important, ideally
| by arriving at that conclusion jointly and as part of an
| overarching plan that everyone can feel involved in - thus
| requests shouldn't be a surprise, they aren't coming from _you_
| so much as from _the plan_ (nebulous though it may be).
|
| Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding information.
|
| Show consideration for other pressures that somebody might be
| under.
|
| Listen when they say no.
|
| Close the loop so that good results get back to the person who
| did the thing.
|
| Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with plane
| crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to
| blame.
|
| Be ready to help out others as they have helped out you.
| jmye wrote:
| I think the article's advice to think about and notice phrasing
| is good: we should all be aware of the words we use, and how
| they sound.
|
| But I think your suggestions mirror my experience in actually
| getting the person to do the thing. The other benefit is that
| the same steps, more or less, work well when managing up as
| well as down.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Absolutely. Words matter. However, one thing I have found is
| that when you go around telling people to do things, they
| frequently tend to do them.
|
| Sometimes, that's fine. After all, I would assume no rational
| human is going to "command" someone to do a thing if they
| don't think they want that thing done. Personally, I've found
| that pointing people in a general direction ends up yielding
| far superior results. Empower your team, and they'll surprise
| you, usually in a good way.
| romafirst3 wrote:
| It depends on the team and the stakes.
|
| Sometimes your team will surprise you but often they'll
| horribly disappoint you. If the stakes are low, sure do
| whatever, but if shit matters ...
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| I count being horribly disappointed as being surprised,
| just with the sign reversed. That's the risk you have to
| take as a leader. But, yeah, if it's a high stakes, do or
| die situation, do what needs to be done, even if that's
| something like getting 3 different groups to work on the
| problem independently, or something.
|
| Long term, if you have the right team, the positive
| surprises will more than cancel out the disappointments
| and the "meh" results. But, if it's a life or death type
| matter, fuck the long term -- you have to survive the
| short term before you start worrying about that. You
| can't manage or lead an organization that's at war the
| same way you would one that's at peace, and nor should
| you try.
| yamakadi wrote:
| Fully agree. Unfortunately, not everyone wants a general
| direction. A list of things to do and by when so they can
| plan out their day and only do what's necessary yields
| baseline expected results and frees you to give more
| attention to team members who do want the freedom to
| choose their tasks and contribute to strategy, etc.
|
| Worst are the people who both don't like the "I need you
| to ..." task giving and do absolutely nothing when left
| alone or only given a goal and a direction. How do you
| deal with it if you are working on an industry where
| performance adjustments and feedback can take years and
| you can coast without doing anything four more than a
| couple of years?
| roenxi wrote:
| An advanced trick (not sure why, it seems easy enough) is
| to point someone in the general direction, wait a day,
| then sit down with them for 60 minutes and ask/talk to
| them about what they're planning on doing. Then you get
| the creativity without the surprise. Maybe even check in
| on them a few times as work goes on.
|
| The bad engineering managers I've seen seem to suffer
| from anthropophobia when they aren't giving orders in a
| meeting room.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Yes. Good bosses do the shitty and awkward tasks for anyone
| else to do.
|
| When a specific task absolutely needs to be done, the boss asks
| for volunteers, delegates, or does it themselves in that order.
|
| The era of militarist corporations dictating downward,
| monopolizing information like it's some fucking government
| intelligence agency, and employees bending the knee to inflated
| egos upward is over.
|
| Bosses now are organizational and individual employee
| facilitators of said employees getting shit done and
| improvements thereof.
|
| Laying out what milestones need to get done and helpful bits to
| get there without micromanaging. Checking in and asking
| questions if there are any blocking items is okay.
|
| Open-mindedness, dispassionate failure analysis, and 360
| feedback are important to maintain professionalism and growth.
| gvurrdon wrote:
| All good stuff, indeed.
|
| > Handle bad results in the same way that the NTSB deals with
| plane crashes - find the flaws in the system instead of
| somebody to blame.
|
| Definitely. I'd like to see a lot more of that, but the default
| often seems to be blame.
|
| I recall a system at a place I worked where the stakeholders
| (native or skilled non-native English speakers) would produce
| requirements by holding meetings with the developer (much less
| skilled non-native speaker), dictate what they wanted, and have
| the developer take notes (which the stakeholders would not
| check) then immediately implement the software. When the
| resulting software was built incorrectly they would blame the
| developer for incompetence, and hold another meeting.
| sspiff wrote:
| In my personal experience, I prefer people saying "I need you
| to" over "If you could just".
|
| The "nice" corner of the chart simply screams hypocrisy to me.
| Like they want to say or mean "do this" but they try to couch
| it in some passive aggressive pleasantry. No thank you. I
| prefer clear communication.
| spinningslate wrote:
| great example that shows judgement, empathy and trust matter.
| Some people _want_ direct communication: they find fluff
| annoying, and don't take any insult or discomfort from it.
| Others find instruction challenging/insulting/intimidating
| and need softer interaction. A good leader can adjust their
| style to ensure the communication lands appropriately. Good
| leadership is largely about emotional intelligence.
| athreyac8 wrote:
| According to me this is better than all "Will you take out
| the trash?"
| swayvil wrote:
| How about, "Im going to have you...". Do you get that one? I
| hate that one.
|
| What's wrong with a nice, "Please foo?"
| sgt wrote:
| How about: "I'm gonna need you to..." or "I'm gonna ask you
| to go ahead and..."
|
| Especially for filling out time sheets or heck, TPS
| reports. This goes really well.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is what popped into my mind instantly when reading
| the parent comment as well!
|
| For anyone who has not seen the movie Office Space, you
| need to see it. While you are at it, also watch the
| series Silicon Valley.
| freedomben wrote:
| I completely agree. I rejoice in directness.
|
| It's a hard time for people like us to be in tech
| (particularly startups and small companies), because the
| culture of extreme passive aggressive is widespread and
| prevalent. Many people, most people, view direct requests as
| rudeness or condescension, even though the net result is
| exactly the same.
|
| The worst part of it to me though, is that it can be hard
| sometimes to figure out what the person means. If they could
| just say what they mean, it would be so much easier. But no,
| instead we have to imply and hint our way to what we want
| lest we be taken as rude, and this requires the receiver to
| exercise some part of mind reading. Most of the time it
| actually works fine, but there are sometimes important and
| consequential moments when it doesn't work fine and there is
| miscommunication, sometimes with disastrous results. And
| completely unnecessary, if the person could have just said
| what they meant instead of trying to hint it. It doesn't need
| to be this way people.
| freedomben wrote:
| Something I have noticed, is that the degree to which this
| is true is somewhat regional. If you are on the West Coast,
| the bar is much higher. If you are on the east coast,
| things are more sane, but trending in the wrong direction.
| TylerE wrote:
| The biggest thing I hate is the attitude that work is
| something you're supposed to be passionate about. I'm
| passionate about having a roof over my head, not coding
| CRUD apps.
| sspiff wrote:
| I still love technology, technical challenges and clever
| hacking. But 95% of real world work is not that. 95% of
| work is fairly boring plumbing or translating of
| requirements into something that will make money for the
| company.
|
| And that's not some terrible thing. Like you said, a job
| is something you do for money. If it weren't, it would be
| a hobby.
|
| Having people be passionate about the work they do is a
| great way to lower the wages and working conditions. Look
| at gamedev, or other sectors people are passionate about.
| Because so many people want to build games, they are
| considered expendable/replaceable and are treated poorly,
| both in terms of wages, working hours, and other labour
| conditions. The same thing applies to FAANG companies to
| some extent - they just "burn up" young talent by
| motivating them to spend as much time crunching in the
| office as possible.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Legislating another person's emotions is entirely
| intrusive, invasive, and overbearing, and frankly,
| psychotic. It would be nice if companies stopped using
| the word "passionate" in job postings. It's creepy and
| weird and makes them look like they're not serious about
| their work.
| FFP999 wrote:
| > Legislating another person's emotions is entirely
| intrusive, invasive, and overbearing, and frankly,
| psychotic.
|
| ...well, that explains its popularity in the corporate
| world then. _rimshot_
| NiloCK wrote:
| > Anybody who says 'I need you to...' goes on the list, even if
| they are not actually talking to me myself.
|
| Can you say more about this? I use this phrase (or slight
| variations) all the time in both work and personal contexts. I
| had no idea it could be abrasive.
| mathgeek wrote:
| Not the GP, but I read it as they prefer to be told the
| reason in addition to the request.
| somewhereoutth wrote:
| It implies that the recipient should be pandering to your
| 'needs'.
|
| Better to say that it is the _thing_ that has 'needs' - e.g.
| 'the rubbish needs to be taken out [before the dustbin people
| get here]'
| deberon wrote:
| Not sure how abrasive this would actually be in a boss v
| employee scenario. However, hearing people order food this
| way makes me cringe.
| anymouse123456 wrote:
| Yeah, I also stiffen under, "I want you to..."
|
| In those cases I strongly prefer to use and hear, "Will you
| please..."
|
| There's something in it that feels like I don't exist. It's
| just an announcement of what the King or Queen wants. I'm not
| worthy of consideration in the request.
| TylerE wrote:
| "Will you please" makes me think of a parent telling their
| kid to stop kicking the back of the seat in front of them.
| That's like the MOST passive aggressive phrasing.
| tekchip wrote:
| I'm going to echo this. "Please" implies an optional
| action like when you're trying to be kind to a child. As
| an adult some people will need you to do things
| unequivocally. If you can't handle that then that's
| really unfortunate for you. Please, get over yourself and
| understand that sometimes business is business and some
| thing must be done. They aren't optional. Otherwise you
| may find yourself finding a new job.
|
| Having said that, I think it is wise to try to keep
| things amicable and only fall back to more rigid language
| and requests, stated as requirements, only after kinder
| communication has failed.
| pmorici wrote:
| "find the flaws in the system instead of somebody to blame"
|
| An issue can run the gambit from "it's the system" to person X
| is not doing their job inline with the basic expectations.
| Subpar managers will always try and blame the system over
| individual accountability even when the problem is blatantly
| obvious because if the person is the problem then that
| necessitates an uncomfortable social interaction. Best to
| understand the facts of a given problem and not jump to any
| conclusions about it must be the "system". There has to be some
| individual responsibility in the work place.
| yterdy wrote:
| Having grown up with a father that did the opposite of all of
| these points, I recognize that this is also good parenting
| advice.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is a huge parenting tip that I hope more people see. My
| dad was pretty good about explaining and showing why he was
| making rules or decisions, but I also spent a lot of time
| with friends who had parents who did not, so I've seen both
| sides of this.
|
| When your kids are young, it matters much less and in some
| cases not at all. But especially as they get older, and can
| start to exercise reason, you should always, always explain
| why you are making a decision or a rule. Even if the why is
| "because I get too hot and I like the thermostat being low"
| being honest is not only going to get more compliance, but it
| will build trust, and your kids will learn from your example.
|
| It really is good general life success advice.
| ranit wrote:
| >> But more seriously: ...
|
| As often happens on HN, a comment worth more than the article.
| A concise and deep set of rules!
| zoogeny wrote:
| > Don't try to maintain 'superiority' by withholding
| information.
|
| This is a lesson I learned and it now bothers me to no end if
| it ever happens to me. When decisions are made behind closed
| doors and then commands rain down from above then I feel rage.
|
| One thing I often say to people who I am responsible to lead is
| that they don't always have to agree but they need to
| understand. It is impossible for people to understand if
| information is kept from them. Even worse is if you try to fake
| compliance through faux-understanding using disinformation or
| by selectively editing information.
|
| Another thing I do is plainly recognize when someone is being
| asked to do something they won't like. Understanding works
| here, but so does some empathy. You can both understand why the
| unpleasant task is required to achieve the goal and acknowledge
| the fact that the person tasked with the duty has a right to
| their feelings.
| CPLX wrote:
| What about "your assignment is" or "you are responsible for" or
| similar? Surprised not to see them there.
|
| The problem with all these is they're personal. Like it's what I
| want you to do.
|
| But it's business. The actual raw communication seems like it
| should be more like an explanation of how your current role
| relates to this specific task (ie you have to do it) as well as
| how other people will be involved, if any.
| tonymet wrote:
| "I need you to ..." is too low level. It's better to set the
| objective, how success will be measured, and who will care about
| it (usually a customer or partner), what the stakes are , and
| when we need to wrap up.
|
| If you find yourself as a manager telling people what to do and
| how to do it, take a step back.
| inopinatus wrote:
| "Your goal today is maintaining capacity and throughput in our
| waste disposal pipeline. How you get that done is up to you."
|
| Engineer: invents self-dumping garbage bags
| User23 wrote:
| This entire premise is silly. What's next, how to parent without
| being parenty? How to direct without being directory? How to
| conduct without being conducty?
|
| If you're in authority over people pretending that you're not is
| just insulting. Just be polite and give commands as are
| appropriate for your position.
| therealcamino wrote:
| The author is way too enamored of "I need" or "The trash needs"
| constructions that are passive-aggressive. I would go nuts if my
| manager talked to me that way. This is all very subjective, but
| at a minimum be direct, and polite. There's a lot of confusion
| here between directness and harshness, and it's missing
| perspective on lots of elements of human communication.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Agreed. I'm surprised the author didn't explore variations on "
| _we_ need to... " or "the {org|team|division|company} needs
| to..."
|
| _Those_ turns of phrases are more inspiring than they are
| commanding.
| hugh-avherald wrote:
| "One of our valued younger customers had blocked up the
| toilets with Monster Munch. Now I need that toilet back in
| play. Let's approach that as a team, shall we? How can _we_
| make that happen? "
| goldenkey wrote:
| I call a rapid-fire SCRUM meeting, topic: Monster Munch
| Lunch
| refurb wrote:
| Pretty much this.
|
| The challenges ahead are for the team to solve. It should be
| a team discussion on how to plan and divide the work up.
|
| There is always boring work involved, but posing it to the
| team and being straightforward "hey this isn't the most
| exciting thing, but we need to get it done" usually gets a
| volunteer.
|
| The more empowered the team feels when work is planned out,
| the less pushback you tend to get.
| dontupvoteme wrote:
| >Clarity axis
|
| That is debatable and part of a fundamental cultural divide
| between, at a minimum - the USA, the UK and Continental Europe.
| latchkey wrote:
| I feel like nobody is addressing the fact that I already took out
| the trash before you even asked. Now _that_ is how to win points
| with the SO.
| number6 wrote:
| That's a hidden contract; don't get resentful if it is not
| appreciated the way you expect
| imhoguy wrote:
| But that was yesterday, the bin is full again :)
| blotato wrote:
| The more trust and respect there is among a group of people, the
| more direct they can be with each other, without coming off as
| harsh.
|
| There is a lot of implicit communication in a relationship with
| deep trust and respect at its core. You can say less, very
| directly, and usually get what you want, without offending
| anyone.
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| Yes. The trick is good rapport, a sense of humor, and respect
| rather than familiarity leading to contempt.
|
| One anti-pattern I've seen is the "big fish in tiny bowl"
| syndrome where a certain person evolves over the years into an
| overpaid, arrogant asshole.
| blotato wrote:
| Also the problem with formulaic wording, as prescribed in the
| blog, is that it promotes overthinking about the wrong thing.
| You overthink the particular phrasing and intonation, rather
| than thinking about how to improve your relationship with
| others which would yield substantially more positive results.
| And when you hesitate from overthinking, people can sense
| that you're not being authentic or genuine.
| shusaku wrote:
| I'm learning how to delegate these days, and it's teaching me
| that I'm a bad communicator. I appreciate the clarity discussion,
| but in the real world it's even harder. At least everyone knows
| what taking out the trash involves! But when it involves
| delegating a complex task, concerns about being bossy means you
| might fail to explain the precise requirements of the task you're
| delegating.
| maliker wrote:
| The trick is to remember that your job as the boss is to help
| your employees do their best work. Once that's established, the
| language comes naturally.
|
| That said, "can you do X?" usually always works. The answer is
| almost always yes. If it's no, there's probably a good reason why
| that lets you rethink the request.
| inopinatus wrote:
| This is some low performance team they must be managing.
| Interrupt-driven task allocation is inherently dysfunctional.
|
| In a high performance team, it's more like managing a band. The
| manager is not the talent. You are Brian Epstein, not John
| Lennon. You enable the talent. You hire smart people, give them
| goals and the resources they need, then get the fuck out of their
| way. They don't take out the trash. You do it. Or hire a janitor,
| since it seems you value the task; that's someone who didn't need
| asking, because GC is already in their JD.
| rswail wrote:
| I've been a team leader and other "management" positions and most
| of the time, my job is to shield the team from external issues to
| allow them to do our needed work. It's also part of my job to
| show, by example, dedication to our common goals, even if that
| means that I'm there during overnight deployments or other
| uncomfortable / less-than-ideal activities.
|
| So I see myself as an equal that has a different role to the
| others in the team.
|
| There are occasions when there's something that breaks through
| that shield and then when I do ask either an individual or the
| team, they understand that I'm asking them to do something that I
| couldn't avoid or do myself.
| solatic wrote:
| If you're looking for the right turn of phrase, you already lost.
| As a leader, you need to establish a rapport (with someone who is
| anyway initially inclined to desire rapport with you, because
| you're their boss and have outsize influence over future
| compensation) and negotiate over high-level context: IC
| availability and understanding what problems need solving. If
| everyone understands the problem and there's mutual trust, the
| details take care of themselves.
|
| Of course, "establish mutual trust" is a whole megillah unto
| itself. But if it exists, "take out the trash" is not bossy. If
| it doesn't exist, "could we take out the trash?" is incredibly
| rude.
| neontomo wrote:
| I agree with you. Looking for the right word is missing the
| point and to me feels like overanalysing instead of
| understanding. I've only worked in one manager position but I
| noticed that different people liked different styles - some
| want to understand why we're doing something and figure out the
| best way to do it themselves, as it gives them agency and
| confidence in their abilities - others felt overwhelmed and
| wanted a more direct approach (do this, in this specific way,
| in this amount of time) and didn't care what the reason was.
|
| If your staff knows your character and that you will stand up
| for them and back their needs in the work place, the phrasing
| is secondary. The most important thing for me is to see the
| individual before directing them, and that takes time, empathy
| but also for them to see that I'm worthy of listening to (the
| criteria differ here).
| strken wrote:
| "We need the trash taken out. Bob, are you going to be in the
| office Friday and can you do it?" is arguably better. I can't
| think of a situation in software development where you need
| someone to just go do something with zero discussion because
| seconds matter, other than maybe on-call.
| PunchTornado wrote:
| I disagree. No matter how much trust there is I accept nobody
| to tell me "I need you to do ..." or some other direct variant.
| Fortunately I encountered few bad bosses like this.
| freedomben wrote:
| This is honestly fascinating to me, so I ask these questions
| in a curious and honest attempt to understand you more.
|
| Do you know why you feel this way? How does it make you feel
| when somebody says that? Does this stay true even for a
| significant other?
|
| Meta: I upvoted because this is a legitimate perspective and
| one I think that needs to be shared. For the down voters, why
| would you down vote this? Is there a reason besides that you
| disagree? Down voting something just because you disagree is
| silly.
| habinero wrote:
| It comes down to cultural norms, really. Where I am, a
| plain brusque "Do this" is rude. You act that way to people
| you really dislike.
|
| So the social interaction is you come up to me and are
| deliberately hostile and then order me to do something.
| That's what you do to an employee you dislike and wish
| would quit.
|
| Obviously I'm capable of understanding different people
| communicate differently, and I can deal, but that's always
| the initial reaction I'm going to have.
|
| In my experience, the disconnect in this thread comes from
| three things:
|
| 1. Different cultures. What's rude in California might not
| be in Finland.
|
| 2. Autistic people vs neurotypical. Autistic people don't
| see the underlying message of (I hate you, please quit)
| underlying the surface "Do this" conversation.
|
| And they (understandingly!) feel excluded and gaslit and
| frustrated. The solution there is for everyone to
| understand and work around the disconnect.
|
| 3. Antisocial HN nerds. There's always a few here who
| clearly don't care about other people and view them as
| things to be used and discarded. Other people aren't worth
| any effort.
| brandensilva wrote:
| So does everything have to be phrased as a question for
| you to feel better about a request?
|
| Aka "Hey Jim, can you tackle this issue?"
| habinero wrote:
| That would be a neutral way to phrase it, yep.
|
| It's less about the wording than the information it
| conveys, that you respect someone enough to talk to them
| politely and make the effort.
|
| If it's hard to see the difference, would it make sense
| if I made an analogy? Your girlfriend texts you "call me?
| :)" vs. "Call me."
|
| One is clearly flirty and in a good mood and the other
| could be angry? upset? urgent? The extra punctuation
| conveys information about how that person feels.
| habinero wrote:
| Actually, I did something there without thinking about
| it.
|
| I said "If X, would it be helpful if I did Y?" because
| I'm about to explain something basic and I don't want to
| sound condescending and treat you like you're stupid.
|
| "If it's hard to see the difference" = "It seems like
| this might be true, but I don't want to assume that. This
| way I give us both an out if I misjudged something and
| I'm accidentally being condescending."
|
| "would it be helpful if I" - "I am trying to be helpful
| and not fight and so I am offering this as a question, so
| you have the freedom to ask for clarification or to
| discount it if it's not helpful"
|
| It's less about the words and more about the "I am trying
| to be helpful and avoid sounding like I think you're
| dumb, which I do not" meaning.
| gardenhedge wrote:
| > If you're looking for the right turn of phrase, you already
| lost. As a leader..
|
| If you're not considering your language and phrasing as a
| leader.. then you're not doing it right. Self reflection and
| adjustment is a huge part of leading.
| kstenerud wrote:
| This is one way to command, but it isn't the best way, because
| the "best" way depends on the people you command. Some prefer
| hands-on, others prefer hands-off. Some like very strong
| decisiveness ("You do this") while others prefer a more
| consensus-style approach ("let's get opinions on this").
|
| At the end of the day, it comes down to "know your audience".
| You'll have your own preferred way of leadership, and the people
| under you will have theirs. Your job is to find a synergy whereby
| your leadership actions inspire the majority rather than repels
| them. There will always be some who don't like your style, but
| you can't make everyone happy. And there will always be other
| leaders with opinions on leadership, but they're usually talking
| about their people, not yours. All that matters is: Are you
| effective in moving your organization, and are the majority whom
| you lead inspired?
| opportune wrote:
| Agree with this. It also goes beyond preference to the level of
| guidance and autonomy the person needs to be effective (even if
| they want a lot of autonomy, it might be better to not give
| them it). Also the nature of the work itself - if must-haves
| totally book your team you really can't give them much
| flexibility or autonomy outside those must-haves.
| happytiger wrote:
| Good tech leaders generally don't command: they inspire.
|
| And when you're at the point where you're trying to figure out
| the "right way to say things" you've already, utterly, failed.
|
| Good tech leaders influence, guide, and grow people. They are
| honest and _authentic_.
|
| The management style I have seen work the best is when people act
| in a real, genuine and sincere ways that are true to who they are
| as individuals and avoid manipulative behavior. They can still be
| hard chargers. They can still be abrasive. But they generally
| have a great degree of self-honesty and consideration to others
| to go along with their ambition.
|
| Spending oceans of time trying to figure out the right turn of
| phrase is a terrible idea. It's focusing more on how things look
| rather than putting the focus on how things _are_ and how things
| _should be._
|
| Obviously there are oceans of management styles. But I can say
| that the smooth talking, super considered people who are focused
| on how exactly to say things rather than bigger picture
| leadership ideals are typically to worst, most manipulative
| people I have ever worked with.
| opportune wrote:
| I don't think this is necessarily true. Delegation is the name
| of the game in any large organization - managers exist to sift
| down tasks to a doer. You can't delegate many kinds of tasks by
| inspiring people. You can generally only inspire people into
| things they want to do and find interesting anyway but the
| unfortunate truth is that there is a lot of boring/annoying/not
| fun stuff that needs to be done and it can't all be done by the
| CEO alone.
| happytiger wrote:
| Managers are leaders are vastly different animals that are
| often incorrectly conflated.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| Correct. Managers handle process and paperwork. Leaders
| direct, influence, inspire, and occasionally even cajole or
| prod. It's the difference between a bureaucrat and a bard.
| The best managers are both, but you definitely want to make
| sure you're not sending a paper pusher to do a playwright's
| job.
| 7952 wrote:
| And you definitely want to make sure your playright can
| handle process and paperwork. Otherwise leadership is
| just sacrifice to cover up for poor planning.
| Paul-Craft wrote:
| > Good tech leaders generally don't command: they inspire.
|
| Ding ding ding! You win the prize.
|
| The way I always put this to people is that "if dictating
| worked, there'd be a lot more dictators in the world."
|
| > Good tech leaders influence, guide, and grow people. They are
| honest and authentic.
|
| > The management style I have seen work the best is when people
| act in a real, genuine and sincere ways that are true to who
| they are as individuals and avoid manipulative behavior. They
| can still be hard chargers. They can still be abrasive. But
| they generally have a great degree of self-honesty and
| consideration to others to go along with their ambition.
|
| The best managers I've ever had never _told_ me to do anything.
| At my last position (from which I was unfortunately laid off a
| few months ago) as a senior staff engineer at a ~100 person
| startup with a ~30 person engineering org, my manager, the CTO,
| raised this to an art form. I joked with our other senior staff
| engineer (whom I hired) that our manager never said anything
| but "Figure it out." Once, after an eng all hands meeting, I
| Slacked my colleague and said "Well, if that wasn't peak $CTO-
| NAME, I don't know what is. I'm pretty sure what I just heard
| was the 25 minute version of 'figure it out.'"
|
| "Figure it out" is a great message when you have a talented
| group of engineers working with you. They're experts at what
| they do, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten hired. "Figure it
| out" gives them room to get shit done, and it also goes a long
| way toward validating any concerns they might express. It's
| almost magical, really.
|
| I worked there for almost a year, and I what I just wrote here
| for all of you is the absolute most valuable thing I learned in
| all that time. As a leader, telling smart, curious, and deeply
| technical people to "figure it out" will get you everything you
| ever dreamed of and more.
|
| The only problem is that if you're not careful, you can end up
| talking too much, which leads to the other half of the lesson:
| shut the fuck up. Literally just stop talking, and leave some
| space in the conversation that you're not filling up with
| words. It's best if you can stop talking right as you've
| sketched out the barest outlines of a big idea, or told a good
| story, or you've just got _something_ that 's conceptually
| interesting to drop in the other person's lap.
|
| Once you do that, "figure it out" + interesting idea + "shut
| the fuck up" is just like weaponized nerd sniping.
| siva7 wrote:
| Those kind of leaders are very rare. There are not enough
| available on the market
| happytiger wrote:
| Only because the current management culture doesn't
| understand, encourage or do anything to create them.
|
| Generally it's _very difficult_ to survive as a good
| manager in most large enterprises as the culture is toxic.
| And that culture is because of poor leadership at the top
| -- CEO culture in American companies is divested of human
| sensitivity and deeply entrenched in exploitative ethos.
| "You got to do what you got to do." It's simply not true
| and many founder lead companies _prove beyond a shadow of a
| doubt_ that companies don't have to be run the way they do.
| But that's the collective belief of the Harvard Business
| reading crowd.
|
| The wage issues, environmental externalities, and people's
| failing faith in the economically-driven society that has
| been so successful for so long reveals a system out of
| balance.
|
| These are _all_ management and leadership failures, be it
| inside of corporations or government. Few workers inside of
| the system glow about their bosses or the effectiveness of
| their leadership teams. And many that do only do so because
| of the contrast to terrible leadership they have
| experienced.
|
| So I agree with you that there is a dearth of good
| leadership. What can we do about it?
|
| It's certainly _much_ better than it was 20 years ago.
| jrgoff wrote:
| I would add to this the importance of listening to be part of
| this approach. I used to work at a company with a couple
| thousand engineers. My team was 20 or so people at the time
| and our dev environment was constantly breaking. It was not
| unusual for me to spend more than a full day each week trying
| to get my dev environment working and unable to do any
| development on what I was supposed to be doing. And that was
| common across the whole team. We had 1 to 2 senior engineers
| working close to full time on improving the situation,
| communicating with the team who maintained the dev
| environment and finding workarounds for our requirements, but
| often in a week or two those workarounds would stop working
| as the devops team made more changes. To be fair, the devops
| team was actively working towards creating a new dev
| ecosystem and our team had some dev needs that were not
| needed for most (maybe any?) of the rest of engineering. So
| they kept breaking our workarounds, we would be told we
| shouldn't be doing things that way anyway so it wasn't their
| fault, but also there wasn't an officially supported way to
| do what we absolutely needed to do to do our work.
|
| Eventually the situation got escalated up the chain and the
| director came to our site to look into the situation. I was
| hopeful that that would lead to some improvements but when he
| was introduced to the team and gave a little speech it
| basically boiled down to "back in my day engineers would get
| their hands dirty and figure things out, maybe as a company
| we've become too lazy and expect other teams to fix things
| for us" - i.e. "you guys need to stop being lazy and figure
| it out yourselves". We were pissed. Fortunately the
| management chain was able to get him to understand the
| situation and he assigned one of the main devops guys to work
| with us to make sure our needs were met going forward. He
| never even apologized to us, I think he just decided it would
| be better to disappear and let things settle (we worked in a
| satellite city and he was at the main office so this was the
| only time many of us had ever interacted with him).
| switch007 wrote:
| > Good tech leaders generally don't command: they inspire.
|
| Agreed. Compare:
|
| We're going to sail on the high seas and discover new lands!
|
| vs
|
| Cut down that tree for wood and build a ship.
| dafelst wrote:
| Sure, but who is going to cut the wood and build the ship? In
| your first example, no one explicitly owns executing that
| task, which is very bad if you do want to sail the high seas.
| switch007 wrote:
| Okay, here's the rest of the story :P :
|
| We're going to sail on the high seas and discover new
| lands! Who's with me?
|
| <loads of hands raise up>
|
| Great! Now, what we need is some wood. How can we get some
| wood?
|
| <lots of people point at the trees and eagerly grab an axe>
| dafelst wrote:
| Improved for sure
| j7ake wrote:
| This article is not meaningful without more context.
|
| What the boss should say to employees needs to be at a high
| enough level (eg overarching goals) so that a capable employee
| can create their own plan to achieve it, but not so high level
| that the employee cannot see the steps needed to go forward.
|
| Ideally this high level goal should push the employee just beyond
| its capabilities, but the boss knows who to connect with in case
| they need help.
|
| In practice that matters much more than whether you say please or
| need or can or want.
| rocqua wrote:
| I find 'take out the trash' so much less hsrsher than 'you will
| take out the trash'.
|
| The first statement permits the response 'no'. It is clearly an
| order, with room for agency on the other side.
|
| The second statement doesn't permit a response. To disagree you
| have to say 'you are wrong'. The statement leaves no room for
| free will. It assumes the authority of the command to be
| overwhelming. Or perhaps it is a threat.
|
| I don't mind direct commands from a boss. But a boss that tells
| me what I will do, might likely find himself wrong.
| r7r8f73j wrote:
| It might be a stylistic choice, and an Office Space meme, but I
| tend to prefer issuing certain kinds of instruction in a
| vulnerable way. So for example "Hey X, I need you to take out
| the trash." But tone is a little important since if you sound
| insincere it comes across as condescending.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| Some people absolutely cannot be managed that way or don't
| hear "I need X" as a request to do X.
| msrenee wrote:
| That comes down to handling every employee as an individual
| and knowing what they do and don't respond to. If you've
| got someone who doesn't take "I need X" as a request to do
| X, you just adjust your phrasing so that your meaning gets
| through.
| Jeff_Brown wrote:
| How about "I need X and the only person who can do it is
| you"?
| brandensilva wrote:
| It is interesting how this changes the tone.
|
| "You will do this" no agency, no control, no
| considerations, skips calling out authority and goes
| direct
|
| "Will you do this?" Direct, has agency but potentially
| confrontational if you say no
|
| "I need you to do this" indicates their authority,
| direct, no control, could be inconsiderate to some as
| they overriding your priorities for their own
|
| It can to be softened up with a question but if they
| really need you to do it I feel like your response also
| softens it up.
|
| I think adding a acknowledgement of inconvenience,
| reason, urgency or explanation to it also helps.
|
| "Hey Jim, I know you are working on X and this will be
| inconvenient for you but I need you to tackle Y" ideally
| a reason or compliment would be good too.
|
| "I need you to do this because you have the most
| expertise on this and feel no one can do it well but you"
|
| "I need you to do this right now. We are losing hundreds
| of thousands of dollars with the web server down" I feel
| this is an acceptable reason to demand to interrupt
| someone to take care of something that has a major impact
| on everyone
|
| And for the life saving measures saying "I need you to
| evacuate this building immediately" is completely
| acceptable to me with no reason needed. Being butt hurt
| over a demand versus a kind request is better than dying.
| raldi wrote:
| "You will speak when you are spoken to" -> Very aggressive
|
| "You will be joining the oncall rotation" -> Quite friendly
| bpicolo wrote:
| "You will be taking on project <x>" seems fairly non-abrasive
| tibbar wrote:
| The first one is, I think, almost a put-down - less a command
| than a drill-sergeant-like drubbing, a punishment for
| stepping out of line.
|
| The second one reads as a news report: like I, the reader of
| the oncall rotation, am sharing the news that your name has
| come up. (If I was the sole controller of the oncall rotation
| it might come across a bit differently, as an actual
| command).
|
| I like the contrast of these two!
| jospag wrote:
| Authority or Control: The statement is often used to assert
| authority or control over someone, setting a clear
| expectation that they should only communicate in response to
| prompts from others.
|
| Hierarchy or Formality: In certain
| https://www.bestghostwriters.net/ contexts, this phrase may
| be employed to reinforce hierarchical relationships or
| maintain a formal atmosphere. It can be associated with
| traditional or authoritarian communication styles.
| zubairq wrote:
| Good advice for marriages too!
| imhoguy wrote:
| And parenting, or being neighbour. It's all about
| communication.
| mattnewport wrote:
| Anyone saying "I need you to..." just makes me think of Bill
| Lumbergh from Office Space. Doesn't come across well at all.
| imhoguy wrote:
| and this scene https://youtube.com/watch?v=dDseexwqm5U
| tjpnz wrote:
| Would you kindly take out the trash?
| daviddoran wrote:
| Box's "influence over authority" is a good read:
| https://boz.com/articles/influence-over-authority
| rytis wrote:
| "Hey, we've got you a new comfy sofa, but can't get it in as
| there's trash everywhere"
|
| I now _I_ come up with the solution, and execute it too.
|
| Why not do it like that? Provide context, making sure people want
| to do the job to achieve goals.
| frankzander wrote:
| Tbh ... what I miss is a honest "please" and a even more honest
| "thank you". And all that though our parents said hopefully often
| "say 'please' and 'thank you'". Honest appreciation is a key
| which opens many doors and hearts.
| surly1 wrote:
| How to treat people like they're people, for robots
| petercooper wrote:
| I feel there are so many more ways this would commonly go down.
|
| For instance: "That trash better be gone by the time I get back."
| - "Trash. Now." - "Don't forget to do the trash." .. or, perhaps
| the ultimate: _look at person_ , _point at trash_ , _raise
| eyebrows and flare nostrils_ , or maybe that was just _my_
| parents.
| blackhaz wrote:
| "We [all, as a company] need to take out the trash, and it
| looks like you are the best person to do it!"
| jsf01 wrote:
| This list excludes the way 80%+ of the commands that the
| leadership at my company issues tend to be done. Sure, small one-
| off requests from someone senior might be phrased in some of the
| ways mentioned in this post. Or, more commonly, something a bit
| more conversational like "hey can you do X", or "we need Y by
| Wednesday, are you up to the task?" But the vast majority of
| commands from higher up aren't issued as commands at all. Bosses
| don't just tell people what to do next, it's a collaborative
| process and a discussion. The team is aligned on our future goals
| and there's a degree of self selecting projects to be assigned
| to, where the things we work on will flow naturally from our
| project goals. Trying to pick the best wording for what really
| amounts to opaque non-collaborative decision making from the top
| just seems like a terrible company culture.
| t43562 wrote:
| Commanding is a last resort usually. For me the main use is when
| the team needs for a decision to be made and a debate settled. In
| a sense I'm providing a service to the team: I'm taking the
| responsibility and blame if things go wrong and removing the need
| to go around debating in circles.
|
| If I'm giving a command it's usually to say confirm some option
| that other people have suggested and debated like - ok "so Bob we
| agree that you're going to X and Alice will do Y".
|
| At other times I want to make sure something gets done and I
| cannot do it or have no time to do it so I give the reason why it
| needs to get done first, e.g. "I'm worried that the QA's don't
| understand it enough to be able to test", so that the person can
| tell me if I'm wrong or if there's new information and then I say
| "could you make sure that the QA's know about it?"
|
| If you that you explain you can show that your reasoning can be
| questioned. Someone might say "I don't know that area well" or
| "I'm under great pressure to do this other thing" or they might
| say "that isn't the way to get what you want". I find it worth
| explaining the problem, suggesting solutions and encouraging the
| other person suggest some - then debating them briefly before
| making a decision.
|
| If you do other things to show an interest in someone and that
| you care about them a bit then the pill of taking instructions is
| less. If you can build rapport by finding out what intersts them,
| get them to talk about themselves - take their HR related
| requests and other interests seriously. You cannot afford to fake
| this - you MUST care.
|
| I also have to take commands and some are very unreasonable -
| those are the hard ones to deal with.
| arzke wrote:
| I am not a native speaker, but I noticed that in Australia people
| sometimes replied to the question "Do you mind...?" with "Yes",
| actually meaning "No" (they don't mind).
|
| It happened enough times so that I've asked a few people why they
| were replying "yes" instead of "no", to which they couldn't give
| me a clear explanation. This really surprised me at first, but
| then I understood that the words didn't matter as much as the
| tone of voice.
|
| Is that something common in Australia? Or in any other country?
| Or was that only a non-representative sample that happened to
| make the same mistake?
| datadeft wrote:
| This is common practice in the US as well.
| willis936 wrote:
| As a US native I've made a habit of not using one word
| responses to questions that have ambiguous binary responses.
| "Not at all." "I don't mind." "I do mind."
| stephen_g wrote:
| As an Australian I'd find that strange without a following
| clarification, in which case the clarifying clause is doing the
| answering and the first bit is just sentiment. There's also the
| possibility of using both yes and no, usually rendered as "Yeah
| nah" or "Nah yeah" - with the first generally being negative
| and the second being positive.
|
| So some examples, both being "Yes I'll do it" -
|
| "Do you mind taking out the rubbish" "Nah, that's fine" (No
| actually answers the question and then you confirm)
|
| "Do you mind taking out the rubbish?" "Oh yeah, no problem"
| (Yes just acting as sentiment)
|
| Or
|
| "Do you mind taking out the rubbish?" "Nah yeah, all good"
|
| Or to say you do mind, you might say "Yeah nah, sorry I'm busy"
| sublinear wrote:
| I have a rule of thumb for determining how difficult it is to be
| the boss somewhere.
|
| Maybe this is obvious, but I've learned it the hard way.
|
| Look at the experience of your team and the complexity of the
| projects. High complexity and low experience cannot be solved
| with "soft skills" no matter how much the business insists that
| it can. In that situation you're not a bad boss, just at the
| wrong place. Don't let incompetent upper management bully you.
| That's how they've kept their jobs this whole time after all.
|
| Nobody would ever think to be "bossy" in the first place if there
| weren't some underlying complexity being misunderstood and/or
| ignored. It's not just a matter of investigating this complexity
| and telling people what to do in a nice way, nor is it a matter
| of doing it yourself or finding extra resources to pitch in.
| Often it's just completely fucked and they want you to sit on the
| grenade.
| camgunz wrote:
| It's not about commanding or asking or whatever, you're not
| trying to get Siri to set a timer. It's about actual human
| relationships. Your job as a manager is to help them achieve both
| their individual goals and your collective goals, in that order.
| A lot of that is coaching and building alignment, but you also
| need to tangle with the organization to protect your team. Once
| you prove to your people that you're doing that, you shouldn't
| have trouble talking to them.
| AuthorizedCust wrote:
| It starts poorly:
|
| > _Leaders command people._
|
| No, that's administration.
|
| Leaders may need to administer, too, but come on, leadership
| isn't administration!
| bluenose69 wrote:
| Every team has a way of expressing things. Teams exist in
| communities that, again, have particular ways of expressing
| things.
|
| In my work environment (in my community) the typical expression
| is "Could you please". This is clear and nobody takes offence.
| More importantly, it invites a response. Perhaps the person is
| already busy doing something else. Perhaps they lack the skill to
| accomplish the task. Asking instead of telling provides the boss
| with useful information, so it's about more than politeness.
|
| As for the website being discussed, I find the rankings odd.
| Quite a few of the discussed alternatives don't seem harsh to me
| at all, and I think they deserve 0 stars. Frankly, depending on
| the circumstance and the community, even those rated the harshest
| would be perfectly okay. "Don't stand there" can save someone
| from losing a limb in a factory. "Keep your head below the
| horizon" can keep someone alive. It all depends. And a boss who
| cannot pick up on how things are communicated in a given team is
| unlikely to be of much use.
| Amadi23 wrote:
| This contribute rests on limited and control & command
| conceptualization and practice of leadership. You can do that.
| The question is, when/where/withhwhom is it appropriate and
| useful.
|
| I argue that a leadership practice that is successful in today's
| complex environment is
|
| - flexible in style (within the command & control paradigm)
|
| - rooted in the trust & inspire paradig
|
| The latter is kind of orthogonal to what's discussed in the text.
| I recommend everybody to look into this, particularly those of
| you who are sitting in a highly complex environment and/or who
| has/wants to deal with the next generation of (w.e.i.r.d.)
| talent.
| FFP999 wrote:
| Glad to see this article. It reminds me of a tech lead I once
| had: very skilled engineer, great guy (we still hang out now,
| long after I left that job), but we communicated differently. I
| come from a background where people think they're being subtle if
| they don't grab the front of your shirt when they're talking. His
| background must have been very different: we had a problem on a
| number of occasions where he would ask me to do something, he
| would leave the conversation with the idea that I had agreed to
| do the thing, and I was completely unaware that he had even
| asked.
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| This isn't foreplay. No one has time to read the tea leaves of
| someone else's "subtleties" and murky language. It's a waste of
| time and cognitive effort. Directness is a virtue. By
| directness, of course, I mean clear language that is to the
| point, not aggressive and disrespectful imposition. If you need
| something, then that's what you should say. The answer should
| likewise be direct. Yeses and noes, and because.
|
| Common sense is one thing, as we don't necessarily want to have
| to spell everything out (and even here, there generally exists
| a space of reasonable difference of opinion and approach, and
| mutual familiarity also breeds implicit context), but it is
| uncharitable to put people into a position where they _must_
| constantly strain their minds to try to determine what you
| need, only to punish them for failing to meet your preciously
| specific and indeterminate expectations. This can quickly
| become abusive, not to mention annoying.
|
| To wit: Make definite assertions. Avoid tame,
| colorless, hesitating, non-committal language. (Rule 12,
| William Strunk, Jr.) Let what you say be simply
| 'Yes' or 'No'; anything more than this comes from evil.
| (Matthew 5:37)
| FFP999 wrote:
| I don't fault him for this: I assume that's just what he
| learned at home. The ultimate lesson I take from this thread
| is that people's preferences in this matter are all over the
| place, and if you want to be a leader (as opposed to, say, a
| manager), you have to be able to be flexible in your
| approach. It's a matter of picking the right tool for the
| job.
|
| Since this tech lead and I are both (relatively) mature
| adults, eventually I simply told him he needed to be more
| direct with me if he wanted me to understand him, he said
| that he was not entirely comfortable with that but he would
| try, and we got by well enough after that.
| cudgy wrote:
| Yes
| gytdev wrote:
| You need/must/have to/imperative that you do = oppositionality
|
| The best boss I had either said: Can You help me out by...x
| Justification, then command...x The room is really messy, can
| you...x Please do this...
|
| I really agree with the Cialdini's method of giving
| justifications for requests. It works very well for me personally
| grvdrm wrote:
| My simple take is asking someone to do something should follow
| two simple rules:
|
| 1. Give some context. Not a novel. But some understanding of why.
| Then be direct.
|
| 2. Don't all the sudden start insulting them when you ask them to
| do something. I know, sounds easy, but there are a lot of
| personalities out there.
| GreedClarifies wrote:
| How to boss correctly :
|
| 1. be straight with people 2. periodically have a discussion
| about what the people want and how/if your goals are aligned 3.
| explain how you can help people get their objectives 4. Depending
| upon complexity, explain perhaps in detail, why a task is aligned
|
| Align goals, if doing tasks is in a person's best then they will
| do it. Otherwise there will be friction that helps no one.
| mvdl wrote:
| "Leaders command people". No, real leaders don't. Those with a
| military background that have been in situations where shit was
| all over the fan will agree.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-11 23:01 UTC)