Words are important. Words and how one expresses himself have a big meaning. For example, whether I use a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what I’m saying.
For example, whether you use a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what you are saying.
For example, whether one uses a word “I”, “you”, or “one” it gives a different feeling to what one is saying.
I’ve noticed that when sharing your experiences (through a blog for example), it’s quite safe to use the word “I”. I tell what happens to me. If I’ve done something, it’s my experience and I can tell about it. No preaching, no teaching. Just sharing my experience. No big deal.
Preaching and teaching
Whenever I use the word “you”, the tone of my blog might change to preaching/teaching. You have to be careful with words.
See, there it goes again – who am I to tell to you that you should be careful with words? I can only speak about myself.
And if I use the word “one”, I go into a bit more neutral zone. There one can wander quite safely. (As you can see). One has to be careful though, this form might sound little… odd. At least to my ear.
How do you approach people? Do you preach/teach and point out how the other needs to do something. Or do you express yourself differently – by using yourself as an example, leaving the other to decide whether he will accept your thinking?
Is it about “you” or “me”?
Think of the following examples, which one are you using when you are delegating a task to somebody else:
- 1) “… and this final graph here shows the flow of the actions, and the end result needs to produce a gadget X. Do you understand the task?”
- 2) “… and this final graph here shows the flow of the actions, and the end result needs to produce a gadget X. Have I expressed the task understandably here?”
The first one is probably okay, but there’s a slight challenge in the air: by asking whether the other guy understands the tasks, you might be automatically suggesting that “if the other guy is not understanding the task, it’s his fault”. This doesn’t necessarily leave room for the thought that there might be (A) something wrong with the task description, (B) or something wrong in how you’ve explained the task description. In some workplaces (I’d guess) this might be even offending. The guy could say that “yes, he understand the tasks” just for the sake of defending himself – he understands everything.
The second point removes the “do you understand” part, and this means that even if the other guy doesn’t get the task, his professionalism isn’t in any way questioned. You have removed the threat and there’s no need for defense. The other guy can then more willingly say that there’s some unclear point. He has no need to defense himself.
I’m exaggerating here a bit you know, I’m not saying that using words as in example #1 would automatically mean questioning the other. This might not be a big deal. People might not even notice this. In some workplaces… this might be an issue. Or maybe people would see you in a different light if you’d approach them differently. (I dunno. Maybe.)
This might not be a big deal
I’m not trying to say here that you’d need to be a wimp and be careful that the people will shatter to pieces from anything.
Just a thought on something that might be useful.