[mlyle]

I think, generally, everyone should try to use that phrasing, because it opens the door to discussion in a way that a command doesn't.

Telling someone "Do X by Friday" or even the slightly softer "I need X by Friday" doesn't open the door to reasonable objections. "Would you like to" implies that discussion is expected but unilateral refusal is probably not.

Of course, if someone systematically shows that their reaction to being softly asked is not reasonable, one should stop softly asking them.

[nailer]

> I think, generally, everyone should try to use that phrasing, because it opens the door to discussion in a way that a command doesn't.

I think the opposite. Nothing personal, but I've used the deferential style for years and the ambiguity and false deference can cloud things.

Person X may not want to do task Y. They might be more interested in their current task. They might not think it's their responsibility. If you don't want to discuss it, don't leave the door open to discussion.

"Person X: drop everything and work on task Y. Thanks."

[mlyle]

I generally want the employee to have the option to discuss it. But I also want them to use this option responsibly and to provide appropriate context in their discussion. If they repeatedly don't, a different style of communication is needed with them.

[mattrp]

As a manager I typically open the conversation with hey hows it going, followed by taking genuine interest in the response. Then I will say hey we have a request from so and so to do x by y, how do you see it from your angle? They will usually say something like “I think I could fit it in if I drop the following.” And then we have a deal and we make a plan to check back. What do you guys think? Is that just the same as “can you please?”

[lliamander]

> "Would you like to" implies that discussion is expected but unilateral refusal is probably not.

I disagree. "Could you please" implies that. "Would you like to" is in fact a solicitation for the other parties preference, and opens the door for refusal. Politeness is important, but if the request is too passive then it can change the meaning.

[boudewijnrempt]

Ah, no. Took me a couple of decades to learn to parse that, but, in fact, nope, it's not a solicitation for a preference, it's a direct command. Or, at least, it's been that every time someone has used that phrase at me.

[lliamander]

I honestly don't hear requests phrased to me that way very often (I can't even think of a concrete instance).

Obviously, there are ways beyond the mere statement that can indicate whether it really was an open question or just a softly worded request (body language, tone, general context). I am by no means blind to such things.

However, it's important to distinguish when a particular usage of language is just wrong, regardless of its popularity. There are far to many ways of putting a request politely without blurring the intent or coming off as passive-aggressive.

[lozf]

I would be inclined to reply with the suggestion that they might begin to consider whether they might perhaps benefit from some assertiveness training.

[jschwartzi]

I expect my reports to tell me if I'm being unreasonable. But then I've worked to build trust with them such that they know I'm not going to fly off the handle if I give them a directive and they push back. In fact I tell them. "Hey, if something I'm saying seems crazy to you please tell me. I know what the project needs but I don't always know what you know about what I'm asking you to do."

If someone blows up at me for being direct, I'm going to PIP them and move them off my team and out the door.