Nobody vs Somebody on Sweeping Statements
"I don't think you need it." Depending who says it, it can be taken seriously or not.
I am a nobody. I don't control money. If I were to tell you that I don't think you need this IT system, and an Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs, you will feel that I am making a sweeping statement and not taking your requirements seriously.
For somebody with a lot more power over money, for example, CEO or deputy CEO, if he tells you that an Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs, you will take it as that Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs.
If we strip the job title, the judgement call is essentially the same, but when the same sweeping statement is made by a somebody, it is always taken seriously, much like if your parents don't give you money, then you accept that your parents are not going to give you the money.
How do we differentiate the same statement spoken by a nobody and a somebody? The somebody was likely once a nobody who moved up the ranks to become somebody. Are there sweeping statements if the nobody has gone through a full thought process, similar to the somebody? Is it the perception that the statement, when originated from the nobody, is deemed to be sweeping due to the perceived lack of effort? and when originated from the somebody, is deemed to be full of weight due to the power somebody holds? If somebody is stripped off of power and identity, would the same statement still be perceived as sweeping?
Conclusion 1: If you are somebody, you can get away with making statements which could have been otherwise marked as sweeping statements. This is because hierarchy forces a submission relationship.
"I still think that you don't need it." As I am a nobody, I will put in more effort to justify my sweeping statement. After I think I justify my sweeping statement, I will still think that you don't need the system, and I revalidate my earlier claim that an Excel spreadsheet will do.
At this point, you will feel that I am blatantly ignoring your requirements and not getting it, perhaps being difficult to handle, and not empathetic to your needs. You attempt to escalate the issue to my boss to seek help to expedite the process to move things forward. You see me as a road block, especially after seeing me further validating my sweeping statements with what you think are really non-consequential reasons to justify my sweeping statements.
However, tables are turned if it is a somebody who tells you that "I still think you don't need it". It implies that you did not take somebody's sweeping statement seriously and somebody is in fact expecting a follow up action from you to show progress that you are working on the Excel spreadsheet. All of a sudden, you wonder what you need do, and you go back to nobody to ask her what somebody wants. Nobody is equally clueless about what somebody wants.
"You have been using the Excel spreadsheet right?" Nobody knows. You think yes, you have been using the Excel spreadsheet. You don't know what aspect of the process has changed with an Excel spreadsheet.
"Does somebody know that you are currently using a spreadsheet?" Somebody probably doesn't.
As I am a nobody, when I say that nothing needs to be done and I have no progress to update, my boss jumps in to update somebody about the progress of the Excel spreadsheet, probably 10 lines worth of update.
"Nothing much has been done," somebody said. I also said that nothing has been done, because the Excel spreadsheet has been there all the while, but you were not using it because you didn't like it. My boss says that I have to do something, so now I have to tell you...
"You need to start using your Excel spreadsheet." You ask me why, why, why? I explain that you need to start using your Excel spreadsheet to show "progress" of work done, but you tell me that you don't want the Excel spreadsheet because it is tedious to update. Now if I tell you that somebody wants me to update him if you have started using your spreadsheet. You take me more seriously and say that you need to check with your boss to see how he wants to update somebody.
Conclusion 2: If you are nobody, no matter how you justify your actions, it can be taken lightly.
While I can put in effort to make what I think are sound judgements, how sound my decisions are depends on who my audience is. If my audience takes a bias position which is opposite of mine, I will be perceived as making a sweeping statement. My audience's act of judging and saying that I made a sweeping statement is also an equally sweeping statement by itself which they are probably not conscious of.
Should I refrain for stating opinions? Opinions are sweeping statements. If I qualify that I am stating my opinion, am I then not perceived to have made a sweeping statement?
In my opinion, I don't think you need it.
Actually, in my view, I still think that you don't need it.
Conclusion 3: Packaging the statements can trick your audience to not deem what you say as sweeping, but if you take a bias position opposite of mine, you will still think that I am making a sweeping statement. That bias position is also a sweeping basis.
I am a nobody. I don't control money. If I were to tell you that I don't think you need this IT system, and an Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs, you will feel that I am making a sweeping statement and not taking your requirements seriously.
For somebody with a lot more power over money, for example, CEO or deputy CEO, if he tells you that an Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs, you will take it as that Excel spreadsheet can meet your needs.
If we strip the job title, the judgement call is essentially the same, but when the same sweeping statement is made by a somebody, it is always taken seriously, much like if your parents don't give you money, then you accept that your parents are not going to give you the money.
How do we differentiate the same statement spoken by a nobody and a somebody? The somebody was likely once a nobody who moved up the ranks to become somebody. Are there sweeping statements if the nobody has gone through a full thought process, similar to the somebody? Is it the perception that the statement, when originated from the nobody, is deemed to be sweeping due to the perceived lack of effort? and when originated from the somebody, is deemed to be full of weight due to the power somebody holds? If somebody is stripped off of power and identity, would the same statement still be perceived as sweeping?
Conclusion 1: If you are somebody, you can get away with making statements which could have been otherwise marked as sweeping statements. This is because hierarchy forces a submission relationship.
"I still think that you don't need it." As I am a nobody, I will put in more effort to justify my sweeping statement. After I think I justify my sweeping statement, I will still think that you don't need the system, and I revalidate my earlier claim that an Excel spreadsheet will do.
At this point, you will feel that I am blatantly ignoring your requirements and not getting it, perhaps being difficult to handle, and not empathetic to your needs. You attempt to escalate the issue to my boss to seek help to expedite the process to move things forward. You see me as a road block, especially after seeing me further validating my sweeping statements with what you think are really non-consequential reasons to justify my sweeping statements.
However, tables are turned if it is a somebody who tells you that "I still think you don't need it". It implies that you did not take somebody's sweeping statement seriously and somebody is in fact expecting a follow up action from you to show progress that you are working on the Excel spreadsheet. All of a sudden, you wonder what you need do, and you go back to nobody to ask her what somebody wants. Nobody is equally clueless about what somebody wants.
"You have been using the Excel spreadsheet right?" Nobody knows. You think yes, you have been using the Excel spreadsheet. You don't know what aspect of the process has changed with an Excel spreadsheet.
"Does somebody know that you are currently using a spreadsheet?" Somebody probably doesn't.
As I am a nobody, when I say that nothing needs to be done and I have no progress to update, my boss jumps in to update somebody about the progress of the Excel spreadsheet, probably 10 lines worth of update.
"Nothing much has been done," somebody said. I also said that nothing has been done, because the Excel spreadsheet has been there all the while, but you were not using it because you didn't like it. My boss says that I have to do something, so now I have to tell you...
"You need to start using your Excel spreadsheet." You ask me why, why, why? I explain that you need to start using your Excel spreadsheet to show "progress" of work done, but you tell me that you don't want the Excel spreadsheet because it is tedious to update. Now if I tell you that somebody wants me to update him if you have started using your spreadsheet. You take me more seriously and say that you need to check with your boss to see how he wants to update somebody.
Conclusion 2: If you are nobody, no matter how you justify your actions, it can be taken lightly.
While I can put in effort to make what I think are sound judgements, how sound my decisions are depends on who my audience is. If my audience takes a bias position which is opposite of mine, I will be perceived as making a sweeping statement. My audience's act of judging and saying that I made a sweeping statement is also an equally sweeping statement by itself which they are probably not conscious of.
Should I refrain for stating opinions? Opinions are sweeping statements. If I qualify that I am stating my opinion, am I then not perceived to have made a sweeping statement?
In my opinion, I don't think you need it.
Actually, in my view, I still think that you don't need it.
Conclusion 3: Packaging the statements can trick your audience to not deem what you say as sweeping, but if you take a bias position opposite of mine, you will still think that I am making a sweeping statement. That bias position is also a sweeping basis.
Comments
Post a Comment