[CyanDeparture]

I'm not sure I agree with most of these, it's not the way I'd go about them, but also I don't see what I do in the comments so I'll add my own hopefully unique perspective here. For example with:

"you are overcomplicating this"

I would put it in the 3rd person or include myself in the problem, and I would apologise at the start for saying something negative, so I would say for example:

"Sorry, but I think we're overcomplicating this, what do we think about the following idea..."

I've found that works fantastically because I'm sort of saying I'm wrong or have caused an issue (I haven't) and they're included in my suggested solution (they're not really) so it makes a great way to change peoples minds (if you don't mind pretending you're having a bad idea too and giving them credit for yours).

I apply this to everything and it works great. You get a lot of people taking credit for your good ideas, but I don't mind if it means the solution is better.

[ErrantX]

This is how I would approach it too. Specifically creating an "us" or "we".

The reason for me is that I am in a reasonably senior leadership role. So even these diplomatically framed options would come across the same way "don't bother me" etc.

Investing myself as part of the team is a key way to make sure I can give feedback in a safe and engaged way.

You do have to actually be engaged though. And it can be a fine balance between engaged and interfering.

Upwards & with direct reports I am more blunt, depending on the dynamic of the relationship. For people I have minimal relationship with (say peers in a different part of the business) I'll tend to flip it as a question; so not "this meeting is not a good use of my time" but instead "what, specifically, might you need from me in the session" (asking for clarification also has the advantage of challenging your assumptions)

[icambron]

This is my approach almost to a T. Managing upward, be direct and take personal responsibility for saying something with friction. Only use we when taking credit. This what your bosses want; their egos are secure but they don’t have time to parse indirect communication and guess what you want (source: I was until recently in sr management)

Managing down, I use “we” and (narratively, if not always in practice) to include everyone in a decision. (Some caveats: e.g. just be direct about stuff they have no say in; no one wants you to pretend they’re included in like reorgs or something). This isn’t about tricking them into misunderstanding how much power they have—it’s about creating the safety for them to push back directly on something they disagree on, despite being objectively less powerful. They’ll feel more comfortable doing the managing upward part directly and effectively.

I’d never say most of the things on that list for fear of feeling squirmy, evasive, or, yes, passive aggressive.

In general, people want firm but open bosses, and bold but accepting staff, where this way of approaching communication works. If you don’t have that, you should find them.

[dsugarman]

It's not really disingenuous if you look at it from another perspective that you really are a team. It's generally productive to try to position things from the same side of the table rather than opposing sides of the table. It's cooperation instead of competition. In your example you're not attacking someone else's suggestion, you're evaluating your teams current path, you're removing ego which removes defensiveness.

[dosethree]

Just phrase it as a question

“Do you think this is too complicated?”

“Is there any way we can simplify this?”

[social_quotient]

I would think this creates an issue.

Yes it’s complicated because it’s complicated. If it could have been simplied I would have done it already.

I would approach this like

I think this is overly complicated. Let’s see if we can simplify.

It’s direct. It says what I truly believe and it puts me on the side of having to do work to simply fit as a collective “we”.

Thoughts?

[jimkleiber]

I like it. I think when most people use the word "direct" they mean using the 2nd-person and stating an "objective" truth about their actions or person. Whereas in you using direct, you meant more directly sharing how one is feeling/thinking on the inside, 1st-person disclosure.

For me, I often try to add a 2nd-person component in there, so it goes 1st-person (singular), 2nd-person (singular), 1st-person (collective).

"I think this is overly complicated, and I imagine you might as well. Shall we find a way to simplify it?"

[sunny3]

My $0.02: "You are complicating this" is an accusation of the recipient. In my opinion, offering the alternative you see as simpler can make the dialogue more productive, e.g., have you considered y? It's simpler because abc... and also achieves the same objective. How did you arrive at this solution? This also saves your own face if/when it turns out things are indeed more complicated than you originally thought.

[coffeefirst]

Yes. You can be kind and speak plainly at the same time. It’s really not that hard.

[jka]

I mostly agree, but for the sake of argument, I do wonder how much time and emotional energy is spent developing and articulating those kind & plain responses in situations where the {requests/demands} that prompted them were unreasonable in the first place.

(if the onus moves to the demand-makers instead, then perhaps we can improve workplace cultures and find something more like the root cause(s))

[InCityDreams]

"Sorry, but I think we're overcomplicating this, what do we think about the following idea..."

"Oh, fuck...i messed up real big. This is not a fucking 'we' situation, at all".

Thank goodness I told my boss to stop the bullshit. And, regarding myself, they stopped. When they do it with others, and I am present, they realise...and then stop.

[twayt]

It’s all in your mindset. Stop viewing your coworker as your adversary or someone you have to walk on thin ice with.

Just say: “I think we might be able to simplify this a bit…<say idea>. What do you think? Do you think that would work?”

[ncmncm]

At issue is when your colleague is an idiot who will be unable to comprehend what is wrong with their idea, no matter how carefully explained.

[twayt]

Been fortunate enough to not work with anyone like that