Word choice is important

The meanings of words are indeed important, but the interpretation of meaning is a matter of opinion. To me the "he transitioned" one just sounds like mealy-mouthed management speak. In the same way that someone who is sacked "transitions" to the unemployment office.

What you are saying is, in effect, spin is important. Where's the news in that? The thing is: spin is nearly always nauseating and often seems very insincere. It assumes you're talking to people who can't figure these things out for themselves, and ends up as straight lying.

Hey James. Thanks for your comment. While I agree that "spin is nearly always nauseating and often seems very insincere", my intent isn't just "spin", but rather the meaning and actions behind the words. "Spin" implies same actions, but different word choice, usually in the sense of hiding a bad action by trying to make it sound good (or make a good action sound even better). Here I'm saying that use different word choice to communicate different actions, and clarify what you really mean. For example saying "I'll get the job done by the morning" boxes you into a schedule, and perhaps forces you to work all evening. Whereas saying "This job will take five hours" allows you to keep your evening and resume the job the next morning - they're two very different actions, therefore it's not just "spin". Also, saying that "I've made improvements (instead of just the ambiguous word "changes") isn't about spinning something, but rather clarifying it.

Here's a classic.

Manager comes up to a developer, says when do you think you can have this small customization done. It's Thursday and you know you need a day cushion just because you know it's not a "small customization", or a "simple one".

You say "oh, well I'll probably have to work on it tomorrow and some over the weekend to get this done so I can tell you that Monday I plan to have this code completed".

That is a mistake, why? You just told your manager Monday but not the time of day...thus your point Tim x hours. Managers almost always will pick that time on Monday for you and most likely it's not the end of the day but it should be.

If I am a manager and my developer tells me it's gonna be x Day, I am going to as a manager at least give that developer till 5pm that day. Bad managers will come up to that developers desk that day whenever they feel like it and I feel that's just not fair to the developer. At the same token, there are 2 sides to this

1) If you are a developer, you better say not only Monday, but make sure you say End of the Day, at 5pm I can have that done. Then you do not have to worry about your manager pressuring you all day that day, thus your concentration is busted.

2) If you are a manager, it's your job to cover for that developer if he or she is just not smart enough to pinpoint a time or x hours. While I believe that the developer should be professional enough to look the manager square in the eye and say this time or x hours, many developers don't for several reasons. The manager should impose a time or just again, say to that developer ok, I will give you till end of the day Monday. That means by 5pm I'd like you to swing by my office and give me a status report on it just so I can see how you did. (keep in mind he would say "see how you did", not "you better have it done by 5pm sharp or else"). The manager also needs to choose his words wisely when his expectations are set. The manager needs to know that whatever the developer tells him/her, that they need to automatically add a 1 day cushion for small jobs granted they are not emergencies which you should not have many in a good enviornment anyway.

So it's both sides that need to be specific, and managers need to let their developers work without being pressured on that day they specified and let them code in piece then come at them at the end of the day, not at 9am....that's not even a full day in context.

I suppose what I'm saying is that this kind of nitpicking use of language is only useful if you're dealing with people who don't understand what you do. You don't need to speak this way with people you work and communicate with regularly and with whom you have a mutual respect.

If your manager is the kind of person who doesn't understand that estimation in software projects (even for very small changes) is hard, then you have a problem that language is unlikely to solve.

James, I kinda see both sides.

I think you are talking about people who just cannot communicate well themselves to begin with like a lot of managers out there that I've come across and I think in IT is usually the case in 80% of the shops out there so you end up having to do what Tim is saying just for your own safety net. What you are saying is there are people who are socially handicapped and they have their own problems, and if you're acting somewhat "normal" in the sense that you don't have a lot of arguments or can just talk "normal" to people I totally get that. I've worked at a couple real good companies where people were just that..."normal". They would work together and go home and work as a team. Unfortunately this is not the norm in most IT shops. I can vouch for this having been 6 places in my career because of bad management who cannot even communicate well to anyone really by my own observations.

I've also worked at 2 companies where people were great. Everyone was and I mean everyone. One was a fortune 500, the other a .com. I think that we should not have to worry about choice of words too much because people need to listen more really and take a breather when someone is talking and really listen and hear what they are saying.

At the same token I also see Tim's side. There are times you have to deal with difficult people and choice of words unfortunately have to come in play. I agree though they shouldn't have to be that precise but we live in a world of people who communicate less well now than ever before. I wish IT overall was a much better place to work in terms of communication but usually it's one of the worst in my experience.

Funny, I did just reread all examples again. I do have one more comment

I've made changes I've made improvements Are the changes good or bad?

I think "what" changes are important. Not if they are "good or bad". A developer may just be refactoring code..or maybe he made a mistake! That's not good, but at least he fixed it.

To be clear: I love words, and I love precision in the use of words. What I'm arguing against is not good word choice, because that's clearly a good thing, but in trying to influence someone's perception of something they will perceive to be negative by changing the words used to describe it. Similarly to try to make someone perceive something as more positive than it might otherwise be, simply by describing it differently. For convenience, I call this 'spin'.

Good communication is primarily about precision, in my opinion. Obfuscating meaning in the way Tim suggests is how we end up with content-free pronouncements from companies, governments and, now, colleagues.

Hey James, I totally agree with your first paragraph; its consistent with my original post and all my comments. But your second paragraph, when you say "Obfuscating meaning in the way Tim suggests", that's obviously just being silly, as I am clearly saying the exact opposite.

Damn words! What I meant to say was "Obfuscating meaning in the way that Tim's example alternatives suggest". I do believe that your examples are pretty much all spin - and this returns me to my original point about how there is no absolute meaning for a word. What someone understands as they read what you have written (or hear what you say) will be different from your intention. That's my point: word choice is important, but you can never be 100% clear about anything. That's one of the beauties of language in my opinion.