Unintended Condescension: II

In Part I of this exploration of unintended condescension, I provided two examples of phrases that carry a risk of being experienced as condescending. In those two examples, the risk results from the judgments the phrases imply. In this Part II are two more examples, but these carry no implied judgment. As in Part I, I'll use the name Charlotte (for Condescender) to refer to the author or speaker of the condescending remark, and the name Edgar (for Experiencer) to refer to the person to whom Charlotte addresses the remark.

But first let me address an issue raised by several readers who asked about the distinction between condescending remarks and patronizing remarks. The two are very similar, and some people regard the two words as synonyms. Indeed, in terms of their effect on other people, there isn't much difference, but it's worth understanding how patronizing remarks differ from those that are merely condescending.

Briefly, patronizing Patronizing remarks are
condescending, but not all
condescending remarks
are patronizingremarks are condescending, but not all condescending remarks are patronizing. Two factors can make a condescending remark patronizing. One factor is the relative power relationship between Charlotte and Edgar, as viewed by Charlotte. If she regards herself as more powerful socially, or more knowledgeable with respect to the issue at hand, her remark is more likely to be regarded as patronizing, even if Edgar disagrees with her as to her assessment of their relative power or knowledge status.

A second factor is Charlotte's intention to protect, teach, instruct, advise, improve, or guide Edgar. To the extent that her intention is benevolent, even if misguided, her remark is more likely to be regarded as patronizing rather than condescending. When relative power status, knowledge status, and benevolence aren't factors in the scenario, the remark is more likely to be regarded as condescending, and less likely to be regarded as patronizing. Admittedly, this is a general observation; you might encounter different views in your travels.

With that clarification, and that caveat, here are two more patterns of remarks that carry a risk of being experienced as condescending.

Hello Edgar…

Used as a greeting in person or in voicemail, this phrase presents no problems. In person or in voicemail, the speaker can control voice tone, which can effectively prevent unintended condescension in this simple construction. But in text messages or in email, the recipient is in charge of interpreting tone, and some recipients interpret hello greetings as sarcastic.

Sarcasm is a risk because of the common use of the Hello construct as in, "Hello Edgar, this is planet Earth calling, what planet are you on?" Or "Hello, Earth calling Edgar, please acknowledge." Charlotte tends to use these sarcastic idioms when she wants to imply that Edgar isn't paying attention to the conversation, or that he has said something Charlotte regards as wrong or foolish on its face. There are dozens of these "earth-to-someone" variants. So many of them include the word "Hello" that the word has acquired an association that creates a risk when we use it in textual communication.

To be safer, Charlotte can use "Hi" instead of "Hello," or simply omit the "Hello."

It worked fine when I tried it

This construction is commonly used when Edgar has reported difficulty with some procedure, often involving electronic devices. Charlotte uses this construction, or any of its similar cousins, to convey the idea that she was unable to reproduce the problematic behavior Edgar is reporting.

The problem with this form is the phrase "when I tried it." Using this phrase risks having Edgar interpret the comment as equivalent to, "You idiot, *I* made it work — why can't you?" This happens because Charlotte is reporting her success, as compared to trying to understand why the device didn't work for Edgar. In other words, Edgar experiences Charlotte's report as if she were stating that she is superior to Edgar.

A safer alternative for Charlotte would be to report her failure to reproduce the problematic behavior: "That's weird, Edgar, I couldn't make it fail like that."

With these two patterns added, we now have four in our little catalog of comments that carry a significant risk of being interpreted as condescending. There are surely dozens more. One that comes to mind is what is commonly called "backdoor bragging." How many more do you know? Send them along and I'll post them. If you can't think of any right now, be on the lookout — they'll come along. First in this series   Top    Next Issue

Are you fed up with tense, explosive meetings? Are you or a colleague the target of a bully? Destructive conflict can ruin organizations. But if we believe that all conflict is destructive, and that we can somehow eliminate conflict, or that conflict is an enemy of productivity, then we're in conflict with Conflict itself. Read 101 Tips for Managing Conflict to learn how to make peace with conflict and make it an organizational asset. Order Now!

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.

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 Conflict Management:

When You Can't Even Think About It

Some problems are so difficult or scary that we can't even think about how to face them. Until we can think, action is not a good idea. How can we engage our brains for the really scary problems?

Deniable Intimidation

Some people achieve or maintain power by intimidating others in deniable ways. Too often, when intimidators succeed, their success rests in part on our unwillingness to resist, or on our lack of skill. By understanding their tactics, and by preparing responses, we can deter intimidators.

Patterns of Conflict Escalation: II

When simple workplace disagreements evolve into workplace warfare, they often do so following recognizable patterns. If we can recognize the patterns early, we can intervene to prevent serious damage to relationships. Here's Part II of a catalog of some of those patterns.

Conceptual Mondegreens

When we disagree about abstractions, such as a problem solution, or a competitor's strategy, the cause can often be misunderstanding the abstraction. That misunderstanding can be a conceptual mondegreen.

Grace Under Fire: III

When someone at work seems intent on making your work life a painful agony, you might experience fear, anxiety, or stress that can lead to a loss of emotional control. Retaining composure is in that case the key to survival.

See also Conflict Management and Effective Communication at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming June 7: Toxic Disrupters: Tactics

Some people tend to disrupt meetings. Their motives vary, but they use techniques drawn from a limited collection. Examples: they violate norms, demand attention, mess with the agenda, and sow distrust. Response begins with recognizing their tactics. Available here and by RSS on June 7.

And on June 14: Pseudo-Collaborations

Most workplace collaborations produce results of value. But some collaborations — pseudo-collaborations — are inherently incapable of producing value, due to performance management systems, or lack of authority, or lack of access to information. Available here and by RSS on June 14.

Coaching services

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