Stop using "we" when you mean "you."

The BBQ Pit
21

[QUOTE=Mosier]
So for all the naysayers out there, why exactly do you suppose ambitious middle management types seem to be the ones insisting on “we” all the time? It’s more subtle than “haha, you fell into my ambiguous pronoun trap!” as was suggested earlier, but the implied credit usurpation (ha! spell checker found that word for me!) is still there.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe it is. But I’m thinking the degree to which you consider the use of that pronoun a personal affront is probably highly dependent on the level of pre-existing animosity you have with the person using it, as well as your own fears about having your work co-opted.

For example, at my job if a project manager said “do we know yet what’s causing that problem,” I would take the “we” to mean us as an organization, or referring to the group of engineers which whom I work (also part of the same organization, ultimately part of the same company, of which “we” are all a part). I would not feel threatened by it in the least, but then, I do not work with a bunch of assholes who I feel are trying to take credit for my work. If I did, I would probably react differently.

22

I don’t know. The last thing it seems to indicate is that they’re trying to screw you over - because if they wanted to do that, they can ask you if you know what the problem is, tell you what a great job you’ve done, then go straight to the customer or higher manager and say “I fixed it”.

Who knows why they chose that pronoun. Maybe they wanted to imply they viewed it as a collective problem, rather than just your problem. Maybe they’re used to using we because customers prefer it when they’re told “we’re working on it” rather than “I’ve passed it across to some other guy and he’s working on it”. Maybe they feel it’s something your whole team, rather than just you, is working on, but they find “your team” is a bit wordy. Maybe they actually do (the poor saps) think their company has a team approach, and you’re all in it together.

All in all, we’re not convinced.

23

[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
You seriously have never seen this?

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do we know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: We’ve resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks Manager!
[/QUOTE]
Just to illustrate Gary’s point, which is the same point I wished to make:

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do YOU know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: We’ve resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks Manager!

I can guarantee one thing, Manager is not going to steal your thunder by using particular pronouns in talking to YOU.

24

[QUOTE=I’m Ron Burgundy?]
It’s not underhanded, it’s condescending. It’s also fucking annoying. That’s the way asshole parents speak with children when they’ve done something wrong. On television.
[/QUOTE]
This is what bugs me about using “we” inappropriately. Like saying, “Aw, did we wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?”

Still less annoying than using “dialog” and “team” as verbs though. And the latest one I’ve encountered: “We’re investing in deeper skills.” WTF? Higher, greater, better, there are so many sensible words to use there, why make up something that sounds so stupid?

25

Conversation that takes place at least ten times a day in my office:

Co-worker: We will do that
Me: What is this we shit? I am the one gonna be doin’ it.

No wonder they think I’m a smart ass.

26

[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
You seriously have never seen this?

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do we know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: We’ve resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks Manager!

Although very subtle, it is every bit as underhanded and slippery as you think it’s not.

The main problem I have with it is this. Don’t say “we” like you’re sitting there with me trying to figure out and resolve the problem. You’re not.
[/QUOTE]
OTOH, you might get this:

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do we know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Well… yes. But to fix it, we’ll need X K$ and Y years.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: I’m afraid we are unable to fix the problem at this stage <insert apologetic speech + compensation suggestion>

Client to Manager: No, you stupid Manager! You suck and your whole ^#%@# company is #%% @ @ #% #% #% !

You see, the manager is the front man. For the outside world, he=company, so when YOU know something, he can say to the world “We know it”.

27

[QUOTE=Roland Orzabal]
If you say so. I really can’t see anyone thinking that this:

Manager: Give me information I do not have.

Dudley: Here is the information.

Manager: Ha! You fell into my clever trap! I used an ambiguous pronoun in my original query, and you, thinking I was merely using a common workplace colloquial phrasing, answered my question in good faith! Now, anyone listening in will be fooled into thinking I already HAD the information, as “we” both discovered it, and was therefore simply asking you for information I already had for no reason whatsoever! Credit is mine! Mwa ha ha HAAAAAAAA!!!

…would work.

If using “we” instead of “you” is a pet peeve of yours, then so be it, but it’s a commonly-used syntax in that type of environment, not an insidious plot to rob you of your accomplishments. I have no use for much of corporate middle management either, but it doesn’t pay to read too much meaning into their pronoun usage. You’ll drive yourself insane by the second memo you read.
[/QUOTE]

Mr. Scott Adams became a very wealthy man because of exactly that type of behaviour.

28

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]
Maybe it is. But I’m thinking the degree to which you consider the use of that pronoun a personal affront is probably highly dependent on the level of pre-existing animosity you have with the person using it, as well as your own fears about having your work co-opted.

For example, at my job if a project manager said “do we know yet what’s causing that problem,” I would take the “we” to mean us as an organization, or referring to the group of engineers which whom I work (also part of the same organization, ultimately part of the same company, of which “we” are all a part). I would not feel threatened by it in the least, but then, I do not work with a bunch of assholes who I feel are trying to take credit for my work. If I did, I would probably react differently.
[/QUOTE]

But don’t you see how inappriopriate it is when:

  1. It’s a one on one conversation – no other parties present;

  2. I am the only person who fills this role;

  3. The person asking will never be knowledgeable on what the problem is and how it’s fixed.

If I were in a meeting with clients and one of the managers said, “we fixed this problem,” then fine. I’m certainly not going to interrupt and say, “Ahem, but I actually fixed this.” The only thing that does is make me look like a complete jackass. Using “we” to represent an organization is certainly acceptable for reasons stated.

Here’s a more reasonable back-and-forth between manager and client – at least how I’d go about it:

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do we know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: One of our engineers resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks!

Do you see how this subtle difference not only makes the manager look like, you know, a decent, honest human being, but it makes it look like my company has some talented technical expertise.

29

[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
Here’s a more reasonable back-and-forth between manager and client – at least how I’d go about it:

Manager to Client: We’re working on the problem.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Do we know what the problem is?

Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: One of our engineers resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks!

Do you see how this subtle difference not only makes the manager look like, you know, a decent, honest human being, but it makes it look like my company has some talented technical expertise.
[/QUOTE]
I’m missing something here… you’re pitting line #2, and implied that it was an attempt to steal credit from you, yet your reasonable back and forth that makes the manager decent and honest has an identical line #2.

30

Last year when Israel and Hezbollah (in Lebanon) were tossing missiles at each other, a Jewish friend came to our house one day and said, “What do we think of what’s going on in Israel?”

For some reason, the idiocy of that stuck with me, like she was asking “What do we think of melinda doolittle getting voted off idol?”

You want ME to help YOU formulate your opinion on a subject like that?

31

Using “we” in the sense of the OP in a one-on-one conversation with a co-worker is condescending, dismissive and obnoxious.

Using “we” as a reference to the entire company and its resources when speaking to a client is perfectly acceptable. (As is the use of “we” when, for example, having a department meeting of some sort - when one might not be totally sure who in particular is working on a given issue, for example.)

In order for the collective pronoun to apply, someone else has to be involved. Otherwise, it’s “I” or “you”. In cases where there are multiple people in a department involved in something, “we” is fine, because you are associated with the department and therefore part of the collective. In cases where you are representing your company (or department, or group, or whatever), “we” is fine because it’s understood you’re speaking on behalf of others.

Even if it’s my personal direct manager checking on the status of a project that isn’t a team effort (“Where are we on this?” for example), it’s obnoxious. If you’re not personally working on something, and it’s not a widespread group-wide sort of project, don’t fucking use “we” to a co-worker, or even a subordinate. In my own personal view (and, as always, YMMV) it’s more obnoxious to a subordinate - both because you should be completely aware of who is actually performing the labor and because the implication is that all credit for good work belongs to you rather than your subordinate. And don’t be fooled - lots of managers believe precisely that. If you don’t have one, count your blessings, but don’t piss on those of us not so fortunate.

My boss does this to me all the time and it drives me directly up the wall. He continually asks where “we” are on tasks he not only isn’t involved in, but in fact has no idea how to perform and is often actively complicating. Or, occasionally, he’ll use “we” to initiate a new project in the following fashion:

“Where are we on X Project?”
“I’m sorry, I’m not totally sure what you mean by X Project. Could you clarify, please?”

This is a situation where X Project does not exist until that very moment - because it’s something he’s been contemplating, but nobody other than his imaginary friend has ever heard of it. Sometimes it’s a project he invented on the spot in the instant that conversation took place.

We’re not going to discuss the staggering irrationality of asking for a status report on a brand-new project.

32

[QUOTE=Roland Orzabal]
Now, if you want to start a Pit thread about the corporate habit of “touching base”, I’ll be right there with guns a-blazin’.
[/QUOTE]

God, agreed! My supervisor says that about 10 times a day, no exaggeration, and it really, really, really pisses me off!!! Do they not realise how completely trite it sounds. I hate all that bullshit corporate jargon. As well as her
“guess-timating” things… Do they actually think it makes them sound better?
Fuck off and speak normally you twat!

33

[QUOTE=I’m Ron Burgundy?]
It’s not underhanded, it’s condescending. It’s also fucking annoying. That’s the way asshole parents speak with children when they’ve done something wrong. On television.
[/QUOTE]

I think it would depend on the context. I can imagine many situations where it wouldn’t be condescending, especially if it is being used in a spirit of honest collaboration. It’s sort of like another expression “you need to <do something>” when the speaker really means “I or we need you to <do something>”. But if the “need” belongs to the person being addressed, then it isn’t offensive. For example, “You need to graduate from high school first, then go to college” is perfectly non-offensive because it’s the person being addressed who is doing the needing.

34

[QUOTE=Spectre of Pithecanthropus]
I think it would depend on the context. I can imagine many situations where it wouldn’t be condescending, especially if it is being used in a spirit of honest collaboration. It’s sort of like another expression “you need to <do something>” when the speaker really means “I or we need you to <do something>”. But if the “need” belongs to the person being addressed, then it isn’t offensive. For example, “You need to graduate from high school first, then go to college” is perfectly non-offensive because it’s the person being addressed who is doing the needing.
[/QUOTE]

This is true, but I think the OP was pretty much addressing his ranting to the people who are using it in the condescending way. I know that’s who I was referring to :slight_smile:

This is one of those things where it’s amazingly easy to tell which is which in person, but it doesn’t translate well into text.

35

It always reminds me of the lone ranger joke where he and Tonto are about to be attacked by indians and Tonto says “What do you mean “we” white man?”

36

My Dad never said ‘we’ when he meant ‘me’ and I also had a Captain in the ARMY that never made that mistake. I worked liked a dog for them.

When ANYONE Tell me to do something by using the ‘we’ when they mean ‘me’, I goldbrick like crazy. I leave stuff for them to do with a note that they said the would help, etc.

When I am told ‘we’ are gong to dig the ditch, better get a shovel and jump in with ‘me’ or it won’t get done.

I have been lucky most of my life, most of the people in power over my work have all been way to smart to make that mistake. the few that weren’t did not last long. I was still there but they did not last.

When it is done as a question like described in the OP in the corporate world, I understand both kinds but neither would get much out of me because I just think it is so phony.

We were at a Glasses place getting new glasses for the wife and the Tech. / fitter / sales/ whatever person was doing the ‘royal we’ stick with the wife. She just stared at him and did not answer or move. When she had his attention, she said, "If you do not drop that ‘royal we’ shite, I’ll call your manager. You are not wearing the glasses, or looking through them and just stop it.

He could hardly talk without doing it. A week later we were back to pick them up and he remembered quite well. Bawahahahaha He could speak without doing it. the manager was there and spoke to us as we left and sold us that his costumer relations was much better and thanks for doing that as it meant more than if he had tried to convince him that people did not really like that speech pattern.

YMMV

37

Is it possible that the manager just doesn’t want to imply that it is YOUR problem and YOU need to fix it personally? By using “we”, he’s giving you an easy out to say, “I’m busy on something else, but Joe over there is looking into it.”

38

[QUOTE=DudleyGarrett]
Problem-Fixer to Manager: Yes, I just did this and that, and the problem’s fixed.

Manager to Problem-Fixer: Thanks.

Manager to Client: One of our engineers resolved the problem by doing this and that.

Client to Manager: Great work, thanks!
[/QUOTE]

I call BS.
As a client, when I call a company, I don’t give a damn who actually fixed the problem, as long as it was fixed. I realize that the person I’m speaking to didn’t solve the problem all on her own, but I really don’t care. That manager has subordinates to do the “dirty” work for her. Her job, for that matter, is to interact with me, buffering the rest of the company.
For that matter, unless I specifically ask, I don’t want to know the background info on what was done to solve the problem. Usually I will not understand it, and wouldn’t care either way. Tell me if I ask, shut up about it otherwise.

And for the record, I am an engineer. In addition to being a client, I have also worked both as the technical expert and as the manager. As an engineer, I totally except it’s the manager’s role to interact with the non-technical outside world, unless I was asked to participate.

Now, when done in a one-on-one conversation, it may be different. Maybe in your case it was condescending. But in my experience, it was usually done to convey partnership, as in “I know you’re the one working on it days and nights, while I am doing other things, but I still acknowledge that the problem is not just yours, but rather the whole department’s / company’s”.

39

[QUOTE=Aangelica]
<snip>the implication is that all credit for good work belongs to you rather than your subordinate. And don’t be fooled - lots of managers believe precisely that.
[/QUOTE]

Personally, I have had many managers throughout my career. I have always taking it for granted that I will get the credit for the job from them, while they get the credit from higher-ups for the whole job (that is likely to incorporate more effort than just my share). Similarly, if I failed, it is their heads that will get chewed. Goes both ways, really.

40

[QUOTE=mhairi2222]
As well as her “guess-timating” things…
[/QUOTE]

I think guesstimating is perfectly usefull. It fits in nicely between an estimate and a wild ass guess.