Discussion on:

How to deliver criticism to a sensitive employee

I thought the comment by AnsuGisalas (We need a rewrite from the other side) was brilliant and I was responding to that comment with hilarious irony.

So hhere you are santeewelding, you missed who the response was to, missed the tone of it and are totally stupid for assuming I was talking to Toni. I, in fact, support Toni enthusiastically. What AnsuGisalas did was write a brilliant satire. I responded in kind and wrote a satire of her satire.

If you are so stupid you don't get the discussions, maybe you shouldn't post here. For you, it is like explaining rainbows to earthworms -- an impossible task even on a rainy day.

You also make unwaranted assumptions.

I've been a manager for some time in major misfortune 500 companies. I am also more deserving of my moniker of "Premiertechnologist" than you may think, although in the scheme of things, that's arguable, a matter of taste. You can judge for yourself with the technology present on my site at DNArefutesBI.com but be warned, besides web master skills (and I'm not bothering to give you a glimpse into my aspx.net skills), I have also been an IBM Mainframe Systems Programmer, a Project Manager and a whole host of other advanced Technological skills I won't mention.

At the age of 12, I built my own 24 Volt DC regulated power supply, designed the circuits, and built a binary counter with a rack of relays scrounged from the AT&T microwave tower they had tossed.

I've written a book, "Assertive Incompetence -- An Introduction to Management Malpractice".

I have a number of advanced hobbies I'm now pursuing.

You entirely missed the point, but given what we've seen of you thus far, it's doubtful that you have the expertise to divine your own incompetence and need a lot of hand holding until you acquire enough competence to discern your own incompetence.

Of the lines on my screen delineating who said what to whom, I see one leading directly back from your instant post to that of GetSmartEditing (hence, I take it, the allusion in your first sentence to "mental illness"). It does not lead back in response to Ansu (his comment a delight to me as well).

I erred in not following the line from your comment up far enough. It appears left-outboard, but one critical step in, which I now appreciate. It does not lead up to the top -- to what Toni wrote. It leads back down to, mental illness.

If the employee starts to cry or gets angry, stop the conversation and ask if she needs a moment.

Shouldn't that be, "ask if they need a moment"?

Since you pointed it out - no. Unless the nuns in school were wrong, the word "they" is a plural pronoun used to reference a plural noun. "She" is a singular pronoun, and it refers to the singular noun "employee" mentioned earlier in the same sentence. Using a plural pronoun to substitute a singular noun is incorrect, though it happens so often most people forgive it (like writing "snuck" instead of "sneaked" - Google that ****).

The article's author was probably trying to be politically correct and use a combination of "he" and "she" throughout the piece, instead of picking one pronoun and using it exclusively. Unfortunately, her quest to be "PC" has earned her an accusation of being politically incorrect - irony, or coincidence?

"They" has a long history as a singular pronoun used to denote an individual of either sex, going back to Chaucer.

of using he and she in an alternating pattern is frequently used in scientific writings, but usually with a mention in the preamble.
I think it's more proper to use "they" in the news delivery genres - in these, reporters don't have space for preambles.

And they is absolutely acceptable in anaphoric reference to a referent of either gender (or of general/common gender).

Other languages, like Spanish, use the male plural to refer to a mixed group of male and female. Why can we not just use "he", when refering to a single person whose identity (male or female) is not necessary for the example being presented.
I never understood why some people feel disenfranchised just because "their" gender isn't mentioned, or think it doesn't mean them, too, when general statements are made like "Man does not live by bread alone."

I used to have a boss that would wait until your annual review to dump all his criticisms on you. Totally unconstructive. If the boss really wanted change he would have addressed issues as they occurred, not wait to ambush you until months and months later. Just pointless bullying.

With the diversity in the workforce (both in the USA and where I work now, in Australia), an effective manager must consider the cultural background employees come from, as part of the dilemma in correcting behaviour, sorry behavior. E.g. is English their first language? Are they from a higher 'emotional' culture, such as Italy? Are they from an Asian country, where opinions aren't as freely given? And beyond culture, what age are they? Cultural context - from country/culture of origin to age - are big influencers on a person's behavior, and understanding them can increase your ability to manage effectively, especially when some criticism is required.

A sensitive person could feel criticized even without being criticized. A sensitive employee, in addition, would cringe, cry mutely and develop uncalled for antagonism on mere approach, as a stronger reaction, fearing job insecurity. Human sensitivities are essentially a plus in progressive interpersonal transactions, when within the limits of sensibility. It is this limitation that differentiates innate sensitiveness and inculcated sensitivities. The former characterizes a person, whereas the latter defines a personality in toto. This is where, the term 'Emotional' gets wrongly thrown in, as an opinion. It is essentially negative by implication, is a shortcoming and not a faculty and has no place in constructiveness of interaction. A communication displays rationality and discretion(at least it should) as against anticipated antagonism and/or cerebral stupor due to emotionality, as in a quarrel or an argument. Thus emotionality is 'Confused Sensitivity Reaction' and your present blog actually begins with and refers to problem solving in the case of an emotional employee, who could get worked up even before a dialogue begins, as you have rightly observed and described. Therefore, if your thrust is towards emotional character of an employee, preparing a 'Written Doc(ument)' might help, provided it is not ignored by the respondent. However, in a confrontation, if you do desire an effective change in the employee's perception and mean speedy business in the face of tantrums, what is also necessary, when 'Face to Face' with the subject, is keeping ready a 'Hidden Doc(tor)' for medical emergency.

In the context of the foregoing, I would like to request you to write for the readers' benefit, supplementary blogs on employees endowed with due sensitivities(the do-gooders) as well as the insensitive ones(the blockers). You will appreciate that these two catagories of humans, constitute the primary chunk of operatives in Organizations with only sprinklings of the emotional type(the psychos). If undesirable emotional characters among employees had not been sprinklings as contended by me, you would not have felt the need for, 'Thinking aside', to classify them as problem cases and suggest remedies by way of your present blog. Assuming for the moment that a do-gooder is not a problem but a promoter of the interests of an organization, the insensitive blocker being an island, a zombi, is certainly another problem and can harm others as against the self-damaging, nervous, emotional element of this blog.