[camel_gopher]

You can communicate like this and have it be effective if you have an established good relationship with the recipient. That’s why team cohesiveness is important.

Context of whom you are communicating with is also important. That’s the trade off of approaches like these rules. In some situations they are fine. In others not so much.

[hluska]

I don’t agree - the type of communication between certain members makes a team harder for everyone to join. You end up with tribal knowledge to the extreme if you communicate like this. It’s why it is unbelievably bad advice - it claims it respects a listener’s time yet creates an environment where the majority won’t listen.

[andrewflnr]

> You end up with tribal knowledge to the extreme if you communicate like this.

Wait, what? How does a team habit of bluntly stating facts result in "tribal knowledge"? If anything it should be the opposite. The approach in the article has problems but I don't believe that's one of them.

[andrewflnr]

Yes, in particular emotional trust is key. Maybe a few people can just declare their own emotional reactions away and have that stick, but you can't ask that of other people. We're still just apes. So if you want brief, clear communication, you need people to actually believe in their guts that when you tell them something they did is broken, it's not a personal attack.