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:

Why Dogs Wag Their Tails

If you've ever known a particular dog at all well, you've probably been amazed at how easy it is to guess a dog's mood, even though dogs can't speak. Perhaps what's more amazing is that it's so difficult to guess a person's mood, even though humans can speak.

Believe It or Else

When we use threats and intimidation to win debates or agreement, we lay a flimsy foundation for future action. Using fear may win the point, but little more.

Fooling Ourselves

Humans have impressive abilities to convince themselves of things that are false. One explanation for this behavior is the theory of cognitive dissonance.

Preventing Toxic Conflict: II

Establishing norms for respectful behavior is perhaps the most effective way to reduce the incidence of toxic conflict at work. When we all understand and subscribe to a particular way of treating each other, we can all help prevent trouble.

Directed Attention Fatigue

Humans have a limited capacity to concentrate attention on thought-intensive tasks. After a time, we must rest and renew. Most brainwork jobs aren't designed with this in mind.

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

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.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