This version of "professionalism" has the stereotypical West Coast problem: the message it claims to be sending gets not only lost in translation, but distorted into something more superficially inoffensive, but underneath that, more opaque and manipulative. It encourages indirection and avoidance rather than respectful candor.
Let's start with the first example. The polite way to say "you are overcomplicating this" is "I think this could be simpler". Not "let's concentrate on initial scope", which isn't remotely the same thing in general. The latter is less generally applicable (how do we know there was an initial scope?), less specific (why stick to initial scope?), and more prescriptive ("let's do this" instead of "I listened to your idea and this is what I think of it").
Now, being less specific and more prescriptive may be some people's idea of effective self-interested corporate behavior, since it works to minimize your vulnerabilities and maximize the obligations of others. But I think communication is more meaningful, effective, and respectful if you explain how you evaluate others' ideas (which implies you at least gave them the respect of listening) before just telling them what to do.
They're not all bad though! I definitely think "that's a horrible idea" is productively replaced with some version of "I have these concerns" or "I think there may be better alternatives". It's generally good to avoid terms that communicate nothing but negative affect and instead communicate whatever ideas that prompted the negative affect.
Apparently I have a very strong preference for low PDI culture, as do most of you. But it's good to be aware that that's not universal and our style may require adaptation for success with diverse audiences.
While I agree with the rest of your point, I don't think it's a West coast thing.
Personally I find it across the range of the US (and of course other countries), but people in different areas will phrase it differently where the meaning can be clearer/lost depending on the familiarity with both the phrasing of the sentence and the culture of the person (I.e I find people in southern US will sugarcoat things differently but it's harder/easier to pickup depending on your familiarity with it).
> (I.e I find people in southern US will sugarcoat things differently but it's harder/easier to pickup depending on your familiarity with it).
As a Southerner that's worked in tech for a long time, I would say the broad-stroke difference between the way Southern US and West Coast approach sugarcoating is that Southerners will try to avoid saying anything directly negative /about the person/ but will have no problem being directly negative about the problem. Outside of religious contexts or in less conservative / more blue-collar surroundings, even profanity is acceptable in professional settings in the South. E.g. rather than "Bill didn't maintain the hydraulics properly on this piece of equipment." it'd be "The fucking bucket is stuck again on the backhoe." Where everyone involves knows it was Bill's job, but nobody is going to call him out directly.
Where, in West Coast settings, there's a sort of indirection that tries to (in my opinion) remove agency from the people involved entirely and sets the problem up as being inherently systemic. WRT to example above, e.g. "The maintenance process for heavy equipment should be revised to prevent future issues." when everybody involved presumably knows it's /a particular piece of equipment/ that's actually the problem, and one person failed to do their job, but nobody will say either of those things directly.
The result, as I see it, is the Southern approach prevents /direct/ blame, but creates indirect blame/accountability for individuals, and focuses on specific/smaller problem areas. The West Coast approach avoids accountability (and agency) of the people involved entirely, but has the benefit of looking at problems more systemically (although sometimes that's a waste of time/effort).
> "The maintenance process for heavy equipment should be revised to prevent future issues."
This is absolutely the diplomatic way to communicate and handle the situation on the West Coast, but interestingly, while we talk about the problem systemically, that's not necessarily what's actually happening. By putting in place a process-driven solution, Bill isn't directly blamed, but some of his autonomy is stripped away.
Sometimes the proposed systematic solution isn't even ever implemented, because what's actually being communicated is just "Don't fuck this up again, Bill."
> By putting in place a process-driven solution, Bill isn't directly blamed, but some of his autonomy is stripped away.
This is key, but something that goes beyond communication styles. One reason I feel our society is dying in bureaucracy at every level is that larger organizations and more broad functions within industries always get standardized and then rigidly turned into processes, usually incrementally over time. Every time someone makes a mistake, we have a "this is why we can't have nice things" moment, but to some degree I bridle at this and feel it's inherently dehumanizing. Organizations and societies are made up of people, and people should be free to make mistakes, the structures in place merely need to prevent disastrous consequences, not /any/ consequences. Autonomy is a function of personal well-being and fulfillment, and it's literally dehumanizing to strip it away, even if "it's for a good cause".
The net effect of all of this is why the US (and the West generally) can't successfully complete any major infrastructure projects on time and under budget for a reasonable price. These types of projects can happen pretty easily in the developing world (although the pendulum probably swings too far towards callousness to human life there).
Agreed. Certainly within the UK, we're infamous for our sugar coating and nonchalant understatements. Politeness is the word in terms of business transactions or discussion, and I've found it often hampers everyone in reaching the end result of the problem at hand by muddying waters.
It's a pretty entrenched stereotype, but I don't have enough personal experience with it to vouch for or against even a general statistical validity relative to other regions and cultures.
I find it better to say: "Do you think there is a way to make this simpler?". This has far better convincing power as it gives the individual space to provide input and it doesn't distance them. Slight variation of this usually makes it far worse – "Don't you think there is a way to make this simpler?".
Alternatively, "I think this can be simpler. Your thoughts?"
Let's start with the first example. The polite way to say "you are overcomplicating this" is "I think this could be simpler". Not "let's concentrate on initial scope", which isn't remotely the same thing in general. The latter is less generally applicable (how do we know there was an initial scope?), less specific (why stick to initial scope?), and more prescriptive ("let's do this" instead of "I listened to your idea and this is what I think of it").
Now, being less specific and more prescriptive may be some people's idea of effective self-interested corporate behavior, since it works to minimize your vulnerabilities and maximize the obligations of others. But I think communication is more meaningful, effective, and respectful if you explain how you evaluate others' ideas (which implies you at least gave them the respect of listening) before just telling them what to do.
They're not all bad though! I definitely think "that's a horrible idea" is productively replaced with some version of "I have these concerns" or "I think there may be better alternatives". It's generally good to avoid terms that communicate nothing but negative affect and instead communicate whatever ideas that prompted the negative affect.
EDIT: another comment mentions Power-Distance Index, which is part of a broader cultural dimensions theory. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofstede%27s_cultural_dimens...
Apparently I have a very strong preference for low PDI culture, as do most of you. But it's good to be aware that that's not universal and our style may require adaptation for success with diverse audiences.