As a writer, editor, and writing teacher, I think about this distinction between don't and do a lot. In writing classrooms, how do you get students to give feedback to one another when they don't necessarily know how to fix something that isn't working? Every reader has valid responses to drafts but not every reader has the vocabulary to say why they are bumping on something. Most of are experts in reading but novices in articulating what would be better. In the writing classroom, I'll highlight this tension: It's not your peers' job to tell you how to fix it. It's just their job to say that they're bumping, and it's your job to hear that without getting defensive. It's my job as the teacher to articulate the affirmative action. But in other scenarios -- say a manager directing work on a new project -- the challenge is that it takes a lot of expertise to even know what someone should do vs. what they should not do, and then it takes a lot of reflection to know how to put that into words for someone else. Few people have had the time to develop those mental models and vocabulary in their domain. They may know how to do X themselves, so they know when other attempts are not quite right. But they may not know how they know how to do X themselves.
Affirmative direction works well for clear-cut situations or when there's a known best practice. But I am thinking what about other scenarios: when the task is ambiguous, or when you actually want the person to develop their own judgement? Defaulting to "do this" can build dependency. The skill becomes knowing when to give the affirmative direction and when to create space for the other person to find their own answer.
This is so helpful! Thank you!
As a writer, editor, and writing teacher, I think about this distinction between don't and do a lot. In writing classrooms, how do you get students to give feedback to one another when they don't necessarily know how to fix something that isn't working? Every reader has valid responses to drafts but not every reader has the vocabulary to say why they are bumping on something. Most of are experts in reading but novices in articulating what would be better. In the writing classroom, I'll highlight this tension: It's not your peers' job to tell you how to fix it. It's just their job to say that they're bumping, and it's your job to hear that without getting defensive. It's my job as the teacher to articulate the affirmative action. But in other scenarios -- say a manager directing work on a new project -- the challenge is that it takes a lot of expertise to even know what someone should do vs. what they should not do, and then it takes a lot of reflection to know how to put that into words for someone else. Few people have had the time to develop those mental models and vocabulary in their domain. They may know how to do X themselves, so they know when other attempts are not quite right. But they may not know how they know how to do X themselves.
Affirmative direction works well for clear-cut situations or when there's a known best practice. But I am thinking what about other scenarios: when the task is ambiguous, or when you actually want the person to develop their own judgement? Defaulting to "do this" can build dependency. The skill becomes knowing when to give the affirmative direction and when to create space for the other person to find their own answer.