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 welcomeWould you like to see your comments posted here? rbrenfPisQwhtshXzxJVvner@ChacUYLEiQVcXCoqJzufoCanyon.comSend me your comments by email, or by Web form.
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.
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.
More articles on Emotions at Work:
- When we take time to express to others our appreciation for what they do for us, a magical thing happens.
- Some Subtleties of ad hominem Attacks
- Groups sometimes make mistakes based on faulty reasoning used in their debates. One source of faulty
reasoning is the ad hominem attack. Here are some insights that help groups recognize and avoid this
class of errors.
- Ego Depletion: An Introduction
- Ego depletion is a recently discovered phenomenon that limits our ability to regulate our own behavior.
It explains such seemingly unrelated phenomena as marketing campaign effectiveness, toxic conflict contagion,
and difficulty losing weight.
- 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.
- On Differences and Disagreements
- When we disagree, it helps to remember that our differences often seem more marked than they really
are. Here are some hints for finding a path back to agreement.
Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout
- Coming July 8: Multi-Expert Consensus
- Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact. Available here and by RSS on July 8.
- And on July 15: Disjoint Concept Vocabularies
- In disputes or in problem solving sessions, when we can't seem to come to agreement, we often attribute the difficulty to miscommunication, histories of disagreements, hidden agendas, or "personality clashes." Sometimes the cause is much simpler. Sometimes the concept vocabularies of the parties don't overlap. Available here and by RSS on July 15.
I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenfPisQwhtshXzxJVvner@ChacUYLEiQVcXCoqJzufoCanyon.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 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info
- The Power Affect: How We Express Our Personal Power
Many people who possess real organizational power have a characteristic demeanor. It's the way they project their presence. I call this the power affect. Some people — call them power pretenders — adopt the power affect well before they attain significant organizational power. Unfortunately for their colleagues, and for their organizations, power pretenders can attain organizational power out of proportion to their merit or abilities. Understanding the power affect is therefore important for anyone who aims to attain power, or anyone who works with power pretenders. Read more about this program.
- Bullet Points: Mastery or Madness?
Decision-makers in modern organizations commonly demand briefings in the form of bullet points or a series of series of bullet points. But this form of presentation has limited value for complex decisions. We need something more. We actually need to think. Briefers who combine the bullet-point format with a variety of persuasion techniques can mislead decision-makers, guiding them into making poor decisions. Read more about this program.