Mfcttrf

I don't know what is the "scientific" term for that but I noticed that, when people give negative feedback, they sometimes use "tricks" to make their words less harsh.

For example, they will use smileys or exclamative ("!", "?") or sentences like: "I might be wrong, but...", "It seems to me that...", etc..

I call those "language smoother" and I remember reading an article about that saying that women use those "tricks" far more than men.

What I would like to know is: How do "language smoother" work (from a psychological point of view) and how to use them properly (to avoid being seen as childish, unprofessional, or lacking self-confidence)?

And, as an aside, if there is a proper term for that, I would be glad to know how exactly it is called?

Note that I'm only interested in written communication and mostly when it comes to interacting with people you don't know or don't know well.

I'm highly interested in external sources, especially scientific studies on the subject but I will still accept personal experiences as a backup.

The technique you are referring to is called escalation limiting, or more informally, disarming.

disarming, adjective

• allaying criticism or hostility

Receiving feedback often makes people uncomfortable, which can in turn cause them to become defensive or even hostile to the person giving the feedback. I've been on both sides of this coin, and when the receiver is not receptive, things get really bad.

There are a few different things in play here so I'll go through them one by one.

Claiming non-expertise

Statements such as "I may be wrong, but" are the disarming technique that I've personally found to be the most helpful. The kinds of statements present the feedback to someone in a way that feels less like a personal attack to the person on the receiving end. Rather than asserting something as a fact, you present it as an option, and let the recipient come to their own conclusion. A common scenario where I use this technique is giving feedback to my coworkers about their estimations. Let's take a look at two ways I could give this feedback and then I'll talk about my results.

1. Your estimations are a bit off. You estimated 2 days for this feature, but it actually took you a week.




2. I may be wrong, but it seems like your features are taking a bit longer to complete than your estimates.

The first option is very cold and factual. I've gotten feedback like that, and it always feels like the person is saying "You are doing bad and it's not acceptable". When I've gotten feedback using the second method, it ends up feeling almost like the person is asking if I've noticed the problem. When I've given feedback using the second method, it has consistently opened up healthy dialogue where we've been able to talk about the problem and work on a solution (there was one exception to this where I had a coworker who was completely unreceptive to any feedback, but those cases are rare).

I statements

The other major thing happening here is "I statements".

I-statements, also called "three-part messages" or "I-messages," are a way of communicating a problem to another person without accusing them of being the cause of the problem. The formula for these messages takes this form: "I feel (emotion/s) when (circumstance/s)." One can also include the effect that the event has on you.

The point of the I statement is to focus the conversation on what the result of the person's actions was, rather than on their actions themselves. By focusing on the result, you allow them to make the connection between their actions and the outcome. People are more likely to accept a conclusion that they come to themselves, so providing them this opportunity makes it much easier for the feedback to stick.

I did an intercultural communication course recently and one of the things that was pointed in the course - quite interestingly - is that your speech patterns and how you construct your discourse is heavily influenced by your mother language, even if you have fluency in a second or third language.

Of course, it also works both ways, since how you perceive input is "tainted" by cultural and social cues from your original culture.

If you use longer phrases built outside of the "standard" order for the language, it seems indirect, and is perceived as "smoother". If you use shorter phrases in the "standard" order, you can be considered "blunt" or even "rude".

(I don't have the formal academic sources on hand, I need to unshelf the course material and look through it, I'll come back to it later)

One example that I have quickly on hand from personal experience is the germanics vs latins.

Context: I'm Brazilian (therefore, latin) and I'm currently living in the Netherlands (germanic) with a very international circle of close colleagues.

In my home country, I'm considered a very blunt, no-nonsense person. Here, the natives consider me diplomatic and sometimes I get feedback that my speech is too convoluted or flowery.

The reverse is also true, sometimes it takes me a while to parse that the other person is not being rude, that's just how their speech pattern and social cues work.