I try to be particular with words.
The words we say and the way we say them shape our management world.
There are certain words and phrases, beyond the obvious swear words and ethnic slurs, that are more subtle and yet are of significant concern. I ran into an example recently.
"We'll see."
This simple phrase seems to imply a prediction of failure. Or, the person has certain expectations that they are not going to share, but will ultimately foretell the project (or a person's) failure. This is a big red flag to me. (For those unfamiliar with the "red flag" it means that it is something that raises concern.)
What words or phrases create a red flag situation for you? Why?
It depends
It's not just "the words we say," it's "...the way we say them." Indeed.
"We'll see" could be innocuous (will competitor X introduce product A at their user conference? We'll see...) or it could be used dismissively.
It's the context, and the tone. Especially for the ambiguous phrases (We'll see, perhaps, that's nice, etc), the meaning is mostly in the delivery.
That makes these phrases particularly difficult for use in email or text messages. They can be easily misinterpreted.
John Hack
On Interpretation of Some Words/Phrases
Siding with John Hack that "It's the context, and the tone," I'd like to go a bit deeper into this very interesting question.
I think it was Pascal, the French philosopher and mathematician, who first introduced "Casuist" and "Casuistry" in connection with interpretation of some word or phrase in an attemp to hide the truth. For example, "enhanced interrogation ~ torture," "Democracy ~ how about some economic democracy?" etc.
Now next time you see words such as "freedom fighter," "terrorist," and "enemy combatant," you want to think carefully about Context, Tone, and CASUISTRY.
--malekz
Context
Context is absolutely crucial.
There are certain words or phrases that catch people and make us pay particularly close attention to context. Without the words initially, there would be no further context.
To that end, what words or phrases catch your ear and make you evaluate context more closely?
I noticed that Mark and Mike stop at the word "should" frequently.
Blink
John & Malekz,
I realized in thinking about this more, it is about recognizing the word before completely understanding the context -- it is just a clue at that point. This is similar to some of the ideas in Blink [Amazon Link]. It is a book by Malcom Gladwell, the author of The Tipping Point. Phrases like "We'll see" and words like "should," prompt me to then evaluate context.
I appreciate everyone's insight!
Derek
Not only context, but also
Not only context, but also the listeners frame of mind. I have seen people read "We'll see" as a negative (as mentioned above) but also seen people take it as "Sure, no problem" if it suits them. It is one of those phrases that I have discouraged my directs from using anymore (along with "I'll see what I can do" and a few other vague ones) and give them a definitive answer. If a definitive one is not possible, making it very clear what you mean. For example, if someone askes for something, instead of saying "we'll see", using the expression, "Let me get back to you on that. You'll hear from me by xyz". It states clearly that you are not certain, but you will have an answer for them by a certain time. That way they cannot make assumptions either way.
"It makes sense to me."
Here is another example, in the podcast entitled "Simple Stakeholder Decision Analysis Tool," Mark points out the phrase "It makes sense to me." Many times this phrase conveys the idea that it makes sense to one person and you must be a fool if you do not see how it makes sense.
This phrase is a red flag. It may or may not ultimately have a negative connotation, but it is definitely worth evaluating.
Derek