Me: “I agree with the overall architecture but I think we will have to deliberate on whether the specified services will meet the requirements. For example, I am not sure if …. service supports …. requirement. So we may have to consider alternatives.”
Colleague: “I just think that we should not discuss such technical details on which services to use in this scenario now. But what you have proposed doesn’t differ much from the architecture I had thought of.”
I find observing people who get their point across makes for very good lessons in effective communication. In this discussion at work, my colleague and I conveyed the same opinions but his statement drove the point to the team in a way that mine didn’t. In retrospection, I analysed the differences that made it so.
- He started off with the point of contention and left the rest to the end. This put the issue he wanted to discuss front and centre.
- His words are more precise (should not discuss, technical details on which services to use) whereas I over-explained trying to provide examples that, by my own admission, I was not sure of.
- He didn’t use any placatory disclaimers like me (I think we will have to deliberate, we may have to)
The tone in which we convey our points can make a marked difference in how they are received and the level of consideration afforded.
Daily Contemplations 
I got your point but without the aid of the example… It doesn’t help, on the contrary it’s a tad confusing as to how it elucidates your point
LikeLike
You are right. A thing to follow in official environment.
LikeLike
What my colleague did was to set the stage with just the premise of the issue. What I did was to fit all my arguments in the first monologue itself. In this scenario, I found that his approach worked better to initiate a proper discussion about the issue whereas mine buried the main point in the load of information I tried to provide in a single sitting.
LikeLike
You are right. A thing to follow in official environment.
LikeLike