Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsLeadership"Thank you for your perspective, …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

"Thank you for your perspective, it was really needed"

#1 · December 21, 2023, 11:21 am

OFF TOPIC

Posting here because I don't see the "new topic" button anymore in the general "power dynamics" forum.

But I also think this topic may be tied to "leadership", and so more pertinent here.

END OFF TOPIC

Hi Guys!

I saw this sentence in the forum:

Great message, it was really needed. But... [restates his original position]

I am interested in understanding it more.

It seems to me it may be a case of high warmth with low intention, meaning the subcommunication may be:

I'm paying lip service to your offering your perspective, and giving you formal recognition...
but I don't agree, don't consider it useful and won't take time to consider it.

The second part derives both from the fact that what usually follows is a restatement of the original position of the person using the sentence, and from the fact that "It was needed" is in the past, meaning: "Now that you said your piece, let's go to the useful things".

That said, the dynamics seem to be different if the sentence is used by the leader, vs if used by other people in the group.

The leader may just be using it to keep leadership and control of the conversation, while other people using it may have more of a "power move" impact.

It also may be tied to how the other person has expressed his or her thoughts. Expressing thoughts vs the leader may always warrant a high level of power protection (something which I myself didn't fully understand until recently), and may justify the leader using the above just to check and enforce public status.

But a subordinate or peer using the same sentence may be strongly out of place, and may justify responding by slightly scalping to reestablish the balance:

Friend: Thank you for your perspective, it was really needed. But...
You: I'm glad you found it useful.

Transitioned, Kavalier and Sol have reacted to this post.

#2 · December 21, 2023, 11:59 pm

Quote from Sol on December 21, 2023, 11:59 pm
Hi Bel,
Here's my thoughts:
To me, the "It was really needed" sounds odd at best, and sarcastic at worst. It’s hard to imagine anyone responding like this UNLESS it was sarcastic. Though it's hard to be sure through text.

Though I also agree with the second part that the dynamics could be different if said by a leader.

I'm picturing a business meeting scenario. Where the presupposition is that the leader wants to hear as many opinions as possible in order to find the best solution/ideas.

In this case, when the person in charge responds briefly to your contribution, they are essentially saying: "Thanks for the contribution. Next?".

Which, if used by a subordinate would feel curt. But from someone higher up in an established hierarchy, though it could be tweaked to sound more genuine/warmer, It would still be in the green for most people.

With this in mind, my thoughts are that it's likely one of two things. Either:

That it’s as you said: Where they are essentially saying "I don't appreciate your input, (perhaps they think it's wrong or something) but for the sake of social standards, I'm going to act as though I do (although I don't care to expend the effort to make it sound convincing)."

Another possibility is that the person could simply want as many responses as possible, and believes that by restating the question, they remove any indication that the thread may have been "finished" following other person's response.With the logic being that if a thread seems like it's been "fully answered", new responders are less likely to re-open the topic.
Of course, to many it would be obvious that this isn't the best way to go about it if this was indeed their intention, but I think it's a possibility regardless. As in general I think it's fair to remember that there are certainly times where a lack of social skill, or just a simple mistake, can make someone come off as more rude or ill-intentioned than they perhaps actually are. Especially over text.

Wider thoughts/abstraction
I had some more general thoughts about this which I think some may find interesting, so I wanted to add them here under a new heading.
I've noticed that it's often a challenge to decipher why something feels off. Just that it feels off.
I wasn't sure for this scenario, but my best guess is that it comes down to the basics of social investment.

To use an example, this reminds me of an interview scenario I once had where I was asked some deeper motivational questions such as "What does success mean to you?", where after each of my answers, the interviewer would respond almost verbatim with: "Thank you, that's interesting to hear. Okay moving on...".
I remember that this initially caught me off guard a little as I'm used to interviews that feel a bit more conversational.

But given the context of an interview, I interpreted it as the interviewer simply wanting to go for a more clinical/methodical approach.

So it seems to me that: Whilst asking someone an inherently high investment question and responding dryly to their thoughtful response would be seen as rude in most scenarios - Given a context where the other person is in charge of "checking things off the list and moving the interaction along", it seems to me that this is where it would become justified.

In terms of responses, in my case I think I went with a simple “no problem” after each response.
Interviewer: Can you describe what success means to you?
Me: (Gives high effort, thoughtful response)
Interviewer: Thanks for sharing. (About to move on)
Me: No problem.
The thinking behind this was that it’s a light power protecting move. As this thread expands on the fact that by putting in the effort to give high effort thoughtful responses, I was helping them to obtain the information that they needed to effectively conduct their process. So I see it as making sure that one gets proper credit for their collaboration.

In a forum scenario like the one you mentioned, you are even more clearly providing someone value by answering their question. So for them to respond that way can definitely come across as curt: I think a response such as “You’re welcome” could be good.
Them:
You: (Invests significantly by answering the question)
Them: Great message, it was really needed. But... [restates his original position]
You: You're welcome.
I see this as a slightly stronger version of my response above, where you are gently reminding them that they were not entitled to your effortsl. Whilst you minimise investment as per standard calibration.

And in person, you could even say this in a dry/flat tone to indicate that you are unimpressed by their response (and their withholding of proper social credit).

Though I wouldn't recommend this if the power differential is too big (e.g. CEO to report), as I think it would have the potential to come off as credit inflating. Since, if you work for them, then technically they are in fact entitled to your effort (as they are paying you for it).

This was much longer than I expected it to be, but I found the topic interesting and perhaps it will spark some ideas in others too.

Hi Bel,

Here's my thoughts:

To me, the "It was really needed" sounds odd at best, and sarcastic at worst. It’s hard to imagine anyone responding like this UNLESS it was sarcastic. Though it's hard to be sure through text.

Though I also agree with the second part that the dynamics could be different if said by a leader.

I'm picturing a business meeting scenario. Where the presupposition is that the leader wants to hear as many opinions as possible in order to find the best solution/ideas.

In this case, when the person in charge responds briefly to your contribution, they are essentially saying: "Thanks for the contribution. Next?".

Which, if used by a subordinate would feel curt. But from someone higher up in an established hierarchy, though it could be tweaked to sound more genuine/warmer, It would still be in the green for most people.

With this in mind, my thoughts are that it's likely one of two things. Either:

That it’s as you said: Where they are essentially saying "I don't appreciate your input, (perhaps they think it's wrong or something) but for the sake of social standards, I'm going to act as though I do (although I don't care to expend the effort to make it sound convincing)."

Another possibility is that the person could simply want as many responses as possible, and believes that by restating the question, they remove any indication that the thread may have been "finished" following other person's response.With the logic being that if a thread seems like it's been "fully answered", new responders are less likely to re-open the topic.
Of course, to many it would be obvious that this isn't the best way to go about it if this was indeed their intention, but I think it's a possibility regardless. As in general I think it's fair to remember that there are certainly times where a lack of social skill, or just a simple mistake, can make someone come off as more rude or ill-intentioned than they perhaps actually are. Especially over text.

Wider thoughts/abstraction

I had some more general thoughts about this which I think some may find interesting, so I wanted to add them here under a new heading.

I've noticed that it's often a challenge to decipher why something feels off. Just that it feels off.

I wasn't sure for this scenario, but my best guess is that it comes down to the basics of social investment.

To use an example, this reminds me of an interview scenario I once had where I was asked some deeper motivational questions such as "What does success mean to you?", where after each of my answers, the interviewer would respond almost verbatim with: "Thank you, that's interesting to hear. Okay moving on...".

I remember that this initially caught me off guard a little as I'm used to interviews that feel a bit more conversational.

But given the context of an interview, I interpreted it as the interviewer simply wanting to go for a more clinical/methodical approach.

So it seems to me that: Whilst asking someone an inherently high investment question and responding dryly to their thoughtful response would be seen as rude in most scenarios - Given a context where the other person is in charge of "checking things off the list and moving the interaction along", it seems to me that this is where it would become justified.

In terms of responses, in my case I think I went with a simple “no problem” after each response.

Interviewer: Can you describe what success means to you?
Me: (Gives high effort, thoughtful response)
Interviewer: Thanks for sharing. (About to move on)
Me: No problem.

The thinking behind this was that it’s a light power protecting move. As this thread expands on the fact that by putting in the effort to give high effort thoughtful responses, I was helping them to obtain the information that they needed to effectively conduct their process. So I see it as making sure that one gets proper credit for their collaboration.

In a forum scenario like the one you mentioned, you are even more clearly providing someone value by answering their question. So for them to respond that way can definitely come across as curt: I think a response such as “You’re welcome” could be good.

Them:
You: (Invests significantly by answering the question)
Them: Great message, it was really needed. But... [restates his original position]
You: You're welcome.

I see this as a slightly stronger version of my response above, where you are gently reminding them that they were not entitled to your effortsl. Whilst you minimise investment as per standard calibration.

And in person, you could even say this in a dry/flat tone to indicate that you are unimpressed by their response (and their withholding of proper social credit).

Though I wouldn't recommend this if the power differential is too big (e.g. CEO to report), as I think it would have the potential to come off as credit inflating. Since, if you work for them, then technically they are in fact entitled to your effort (as they are paying you for it).

This was much longer than I expected it to be, but I found the topic interesting and perhaps it will spark some ideas in others too.

B has reacted to this post.