This is worlds better than being rude. In my experience it errs a little in the other direction because it leaves the situation a little ambiguous (and thus invites more conflict) by implying that it is debatable. Especially the "if that is ok with you part"
I might try something like: "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so it would be better if I took care of it myself, I Appreciate the effort though!"
In dissecting your statement, "it's important that this server is configured correctly, so I think it would be better if I took care of it myself, if that's ok with you"
clause one is ok, but does not provide a 'why'. clause two leaves too much leeway as to whether the junior developer action is acceptable going forward. clause three is actively negative as it opens up debate for something that is not up for debate.
a proper communication would have been to take the junior somewhere away from anyone else, made sure that the tone of voice was unagressive but authorative, and stated something along the lines that, this is not a major issue but we need to have an important quick conversation, first explain that number 1 what the issue is, explain number two the underlying why, and explain what will happen go forward, make sure he understands this is not a debate, this is you giving him direction on what will occur going forward, i would give him an oppurtunity to meaningfully contribute in the future if it made sense, finally make sure he understands.
being to flimsy or wishy washy is NOT good communication
If this is a recurring problem and previous, friendlier attempts have failed already then it's necessary to rephrase the message in a clear, authoritative manner but in my experience this is very rarely, if ever needed.
The original communication does not actually communicate the underlying issue in this particular case. Its not a 'friendly' vs 'unfriendly' communication issue. Its an issue that the communication is NOT actually communicating what the intent of the message is.
The intent of the message is 'this is not your responsibility, although you intend to help you are actually making more work for others not less, do not do this or similar things again, without consulting the person who's responsibility it is beforehand' thats the message.
the way its phrased if the person is a senior he is going to understand what you are 'really' telling him in nice words. if the person is a junior he is going to think you are really entering a debate about how this should be approached, and that you need to reach consensus with him about the approach, and that although you didnt accept his contribution this time, next time or next situation this may be a reasonable way to contribute to the team.
you have communicated the wrong thing to your target audience. its bad communication. its not 'unfriendlier' to communicate directly what you actually mean and to provide clear guidance and correction to a junior.
If someone does something that offends me, but I know after a few seconds' thought that they didn't intend to, for example they were busy or look upset for some reason, then it would be foolish to take offence.
If someone does something that is extra polite and friendly and massages my ego, but I know that they hate me and are being two-faced (for whatever reason) I might take offence.
Of course, everyone's different, but most people's theory of mind is developed to this point past past a certain age. I don't think it's absurd to take some responsibility for your own thoughts. I think it's how society hangs together.
It's absurd to never take any personal interactions personally. It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally.
Your argument is basically the twitter problem: stop judging people by individual statements or interactions, understand that there's an entire separate being on the other end of every conversation with concerns and experiences of their own.
> It's equally absurd to take every personal interaction personally.
Ok, which personal interactions should not be taken personally? Do you understand how ridiculous that sounds definitionally?
Use your best judgment and try to give people the benefit of the doubt (this requires practicing empathy, which is difficult). Realize most people are usually not thinking about you, because they are too busy thinking about themselves. I find it beneficial to try to act in a way that leaves the most people feeling positively (including myself).
I think it's ridiculous, and more often than not people prescribe such behavior for others but are quite comfortable taking personally that which... personally affects them. Silent forgiveness for the inconsiderate instead of numerous means of improving one's relationship with them. Telling someone that they are treating you in an unacceptable manner is, by definition, taking it personally. And being passive and avoiding such conversations is exactly how unpleasant social interactions persist and grow into a climate of alienation and dysfunction.
> You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally".
Sure i can. When it affects you, personally. People who disagree with me can't come up with a set of criteria. Without such a criteria, there is no justification of the attitude.
> For one thing, taking something personally isn't a binary attribute, it is far more complicated than that.
Taking something personally is binary in this way: you either ignore the personal effects a relationship has on you or you signal/take action based on those personal effects. All of the complication lies in how one proceeds based on their feelings. Mediation and conflict resolution are complicated yes. But you can't resolve a conflict without signaling that it exists and that you have a personal stake in it. That is exactly what taking something personally means.
There are large-scale social implications. People who are lower in status are told to not take it personally more often than people of higher status. When a boss is emotionally abusive, people are far more likely to excuse such behavior than if an underling is being emotionally abusive. In other words, prescribing to people to passively accept uncomfortable or harmful social interactions without protest becomes a mechanism of power. The effects are alienation, depersonalization, stress, and social dysfunction. That shit infests our society.
I also didn't say you should ignore your feelings. Personally, I make an effort to be aware of my visceral reactions when things happen, and to not let my automatic, gut reaction run away with itself. But I do want to my understand my feelings, not just stifle them.
However, I also try to emulate the mental space of the person who said the thing, and the wider impact of me speaking up, and only say something if I feel it will be received in a productive fashion and will be generally beneficial. Highly personal criticism (even when constructive) usually loses effectiveness if it is overgiven, and is also a socially expensive thing, as it often feels negative for the recipient in the initial instant. It also carries less weight when coming from someone you don't know that well or haven't built up trust with, which makes the expensive interaction to give feedback often times a waste, with little ROI.
> how unpleasant social interactions persist and grow into a climate of alienation and dysfunction
is more like someone you expect to be rude to you all the time unless you tell them not to be. If that's not going to happen, then just letting it go could be a reasonable response. There's also the fact that this is being recounted after the fact, which implies not just hurt feelings in the moment but a lasting grudge held over something most people wouldn't be bothered by, which can also be toxic to relationships.
> > You can't delineate a set of criteria for when to take a statement said to you "personally".
> Sure i can. When it affects you, personally. People who disagree with me can't come up with a set of criteria.
Fair enough. Everyone takes offense at different things. But if your threshold is set so low that interactions that most people wouldn't find "uncomfortable or harmful" are "unacceptable" to you, then any interaction with you becomes difficult, and that difficulty will drive people away and alienate you.
That's how you're coming across here, and that's why people are suggesting you try to change yourself, change the way you view these interactions, instead of just insisting that everyone else change to accommodate you. "Don't take it personally" doesn't mean "don't react to things that bother you", it means "don't let it bother you". For things that have no ill intent and don't bother most people (even when it's directed at them), that's good advice.
If you honestly don't understand how to apply this kind of nuance that is concerning and could indicate an undiagnosed psychological condition (e.g. autism spectrum) -- consider talking to a professional. But I'll try to elaborate:
Try giving people the benefit of doubt. The vast majority of people are not intentionally being obnoxious. There is a multitude of reasons someone might come across as hostile without it being something you should take personal, for example:
* sleep deprivation
* hunger (e.g. skipped a meal)
* bad posture (causing discomfort they may not even be aware of)
* physical illness (e.g. a simple cold)
* physical conditions (e.g. menstruation, indigestion)
* stress (e.g. close deadlines, financial problems, relationship issues)
* other psychological conditions (e.g. grief)
* mental disorders (e.g. depression)
* bad social skills (some people genuinely can't communicate well)
* non-native speakers (may be unaware of subtleties in tone and voice)
* language disabilities (e.g. stuttering may make them anxious when they have to talk)
Instead of judging people by singular interactions, try to recognize patterns in their behaviour.
This kind of passive aggressive, ableist bullshit is completely unacceptable.