Make Suggestions Privately

As is well known, unsolicited advice is rarely heeded. Receivers of unsolicited advice often experience the advice as criticism, rejection, or attacks. If their reactions are severe enough, the receivers might counterattack, even if their givers intended only to help. But the situation is actually worse than that. Depending on how the givers deliver comments of any kind — even comments that aren't advice — receivers sometimes experience those comments, including questions, suggestions, and requests, as unsolicited advice. Some receivers then react as if they were criticized, rejected, or attacked.

So in response to questions, suggestions, or requests, receivers sometimes attack, which must seem truly odd to the person asking the question or making the suggestion or request: "Wow, he must be in a really bad mood." Or, "What did I do to set her off like that?" Or, "My idea is obviously a good one — he must be dumber than a bag of hair."

Moods and intelligence might have nothing (or very little) to do with it. Sometimes the real reason why receivers reject or attack their givers is the setting in which the giver delivers the question, suggestion, or request.

Here's an example. Geoff is responsible for coordinating a group of representatives of different departments as they gather census data about equipment that all departments are updating. In the course of this work, each department must gather data on the equipment it owns. They're all probing enterprise databases and scanning equipment tags and RFIDs as necessary. Naturally, when the scanned data and the databases don't agree, somebody has to do some research to resolve the discrepancy.

Each department Some people have no difficulty
adopting suggestions from
others, however they arrive.
Some just can't.has invented its own process for doing essentially the same thing. It's wasteful compared to an alternative that would involve a single scan of all relevant equipment tags, and comparison of that result with the enterprise databases. So at a weekly meeting about six weeks ago, Geoff suggested to Ellis, the program manager, that IT could scan all the equipment tags and RFIDs, and gather all the data for distribution to the departments, who would then work on resolving the discrepancies, if any.

Ellis listened to Geoff's suggestion and said, "Hmm, I'll look into it." Nobody has heard anything about it from Ellis since then. And they won't, unless they ask. If they do ask, Ellis will find a way to put them off.

The problem is that Geoff's idea is a good one, and in retrospect, it's also obvious. When Geoff suggested it, Ellis realized that Geoff was right — the process they were using, which Ellis had devised, was, well, idiotic. But Ellis could find no way to announce a change without feeling foolish.

Some people have no difficulty adopting suggestions from others, however they arrive. Ellis isn't one of these people. Things might have gone very differently if Geoff had suggested his idea to Ellis in a one-on-one meeting, or even by telephone. Then Ellis could have announced a change, possibly crediting Geoff. Or Ellis might even have taken credit for the idea himself. Geoff wouldn't have liked that very much, but he liked the chaos of the current process even less.

The risk of credit thievery is the obvious downside of making suggestions privately. Because no witness can confirm that the receiver got the idea first from the giver, the receiver might steal all or some of the credit. Or not. But if the giver benefits significantly from the receiver adopting the suggestion, the risk of thievery can be worthwhile. If you adopt this suggestion, it's OK with me if you take credit for it.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Emotions at Work:

When Naming Hurts

One of our great strengths as Humans is our ability to name things. Naming empowers us by helping us think about and communicate complex ideas. But naming has a dark side, too. We use naming to oversimplify, to denigrate, to disempower, and even to dehumanize. When we abuse this tool, we hurt our companies, our colleagues, and ourselves.

Decision Making and the Straw Man

In project work, we often make decisions with incomplete information. Sometimes we narrow the options to a few, examine their strengths and risks, and make a choice. In our deliberations, some advocates use a technique called the Straw Man fallacy. It threatens the soundness of the decision, and its use is very common.

The Loopy Things We Do at Work

At the end of the day, your skill at finding humor inside the dull and ordinary can make the difference between going home exhausted and going home in a strait jacket. Adopting a twisted view of the goings-on might just help keep you untwisted.

Fill in the Blanks

When we conceal information about ourselves and our areas of responsibility, we make room for others to speculate. Speculation is rarely helpful. It's wise to fill in the blanks.

How to Listen to Someone Who's Dead Wrong

Sometimes we must listen attentively to someone with whom we strongly disagree. The urge to interrupt can be overpowering. How can we maintain enough self-control to really listen?

See also Emotions at Work and Emotions at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming May 14: Working with the Overconfident

A cognitive bias known as the Overconfidence Effect causes us to overestimate the reliability of our judgments. Decisions we make based on those judgments are therefore suspect. But there are steps we can take to make our confidence levels more realistic, and thus make our decisions more reliable. Available here and by RSS on May 14.

And on May 21: Mismanaging Project Managers

Most organizations hold project managers accountable for project performance. But they don't grant those project managers control of needed resources. Nor do they hold project sponsors or other senior managers accountable for the consequences of their actions when they interfere with project work. Here's a catalog of behaviors worth looking at. Available here and by RSS on May 21.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenDJpmhgyaDTwBQXkhner@ChacmGoYuzfZpOvDQdRkoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info