I’ve been noticing what’s missing lately. In some ways, its harder to see what’s not there than what is. But there’s lost of useful information in what isn’t said, as well as what is.
A manager, talking about one of the people who reported to him said:
“He’s difficult to manage.”
“He’s difficult (for me) to manage.”
“(When he does X), he’s difficult (for me) to manage.”
“(When he does X,) he’s difficult (for me) to manage (because I don’t understand his actions).”
“(When he does X), he’s difficult (for me) to manage (because I don’t understand his actions and I don’t know what to do).”
There may be another follow-on sentence, that hints at the crux of the matter. That sentence might be…
And I’m worried that if I can’t bring him around, I’ll miss my goals and my boss will think I’m not competent.
And I have judgements about that behavior because I was criticized for that when I was in school.
And I feel threatened.
And I feel I have to defend my ideas.
I know what I’m asking doesn’t make sense, but my boss told me to do it.
It may have been more comfortable for the manager to say the first sentence, as he did. He may even believe it.
As long as the manager deletes parts of the sentence, it’s easy for him to see the other person as the problem. As long as the problem resides entirely with the other person, there’s not much he can do to improve the situation (other than fire the “difficult to manage” person). But the deletions contain important information that could help him improve the situation.
What examples would you add?