[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)