Many engineers relate better to equations than to language, so let us bring up an important example of the former that influences our choice of words in our letters, proposals and reports.

The Trust Equation, presented by Maister et al (2001) in The Trusted Advisor, states the following parameters are essential for building (T)rust: (C)redibility, (R)eliability, (F)amiliarity (or Intimacy, but the latter feels uncomfortable) and (S)elf-focus (or -orientation).

The Trust Equation
The Trust Equation

The equation might apply broadly to all sorts of relationships but here we are primarily focusing on Engineering advisors/consultants and their clients.

Building trust with clients and within teams to move projects forward is essential. Let’s discuss how for any communication personal pronouns are weapons that should be shouldered with care, when viewed using these parameters.

Motivation and Example

A young engineer brought over a proposal for review. We conferred and I said “read the first word in the first four sentences.” He could see they were all the same: either the name of our company or other self-focused pronouns. I said “look, S is what we want to minimize, not maximize, in order to convey the truth to the client that their objectives are the top priority.” He agreed and retooled the proposal accordingly to focus on their challenges, and we later were awarded the work.

As engineers regardless of our math-focus we write constantly to convey our opinions or findings: emails, letters, proposals, technical reports. How can we choose pronouns such as We, I, You, One and They more effectively?

Note that we will use English in these examples but these principles should be broadly applicable across most languages. Perhaps there might be a few countries where these approaches would be mortal insults; not sure.

The Royal We

We is certainly fitting when you want to write about a joint effort. However, when we (meaning myself in this case) write to clients about our positive observations, findings, tasks etc., we usually use we, even if only a single person may have composed that particular email or conducted the analysis. This flavors the writing in several ways:

  1. The client gets the impression that this is a team effort. Which it was, even if you think you did all of the work. You had a business development person who set the project up, staff assistants that keep it running smoothly, an IT person that keeps the computer running with minimal bugs. The products are always a team contribution regardless of one’s ego, so might as well acknowledge that.
  2. Your team gets the impression that you are being generous, if you indeed did the lion’s share. Getting a reputation for sharing credit is to your benefit, so why not regularly use language that conveys that?
  3. Sometimes we can mean “our consulting team performing this service for you, the client” and sometimes we might mean “our combined consultant+client team, that works well together.” We therefore carries a bit of ambiguity, which might subconsciously give the client a sense of inclusion even if the first meaning was intended. This fosters (F)amiliarity with them.

Consider when you can address parties with a We, instead of the following dreadful term.

I

Not preferred. Minimize it where one can. This pronoun increases S and thus drives down T.

There is a powerful exception however. When I have made a mistake (which happens not infrequently), or when I want to make a potentially unpopular observation/recommendation that I do not want my team blamed for if it goes south, then I just dive right in and use I. If the client wants to take issue with the advice, the client knows they can come right to me or will have their opinions colored about me only: minimal collateral damage. Bonus: if we have a reputation for being able to jointly work through tough issues like these, getting over that hump helps build F and (R)eliability. Then when things improve we toggle back to we.

Taking heat for your team is important long-term. Stepping in front of a client’s potential bullet is even more valuable with an I apologize for when the specific actions were by someone else on the team and technically you might not have felt it was your fault. As a leader you are accountable for the team regardless, which is something drilled into one in the military but seems to not be on the mind of people in, say, politics. Your team members will appreciate your not throwing them under the bus, even if possibly deserving. Unpopular (albeit truthful) positions or admitting mistakes probably will not destroy your career. In fact, semi-regularly allowing yourself to be a “cat’s paw” that can take blame for mistakes not directly your own can be minimally painful and even strategic. Step into this role only with caution however.

You

While a focus on the client’s needs is admirable to minimize S, you is another pronoun to be used carefully. One might want to use you to address the client, to keep things personal, but remember that the person addressed may not be the one that has the responsibility for taking action on recommendations. They may simply be the point of contact. Thus You can make someone feel singled out; that something in particular is expected from them they may or may not be able to deliver. It may be safer and more correct to use the organization name; something like “Tesla’s comments and discussions regarding this proposal would be welcome.” Seems impersonal perhaps but company names are more inclusive, acknowledging that the client point of contact too is part of a broader team.

One
Admittedly this author has been accused of having a quite passive, indirect style of writing, but I like using one in the right situation. We discussed why you can be suboptimal. One seems less targeted; less threatening when one makes a recommendation. Consider three options:

  1. [Client] could consider conducting sensitivity analysis regarding X as a function of Y.
  2. [Consultant] recommends conducting sensitivity analysis regarding X as a function of Y.
  3. One could conduct sensitivity analysis regarding X as a function of Y.

#1, even if softened with could instead of should, sounds like the client is being directed to do something. Perhaps the client wants to, perhaps they do not; perhaps you are overstepping your bounds to direct them. #2 sounds like the consultant is volunteering to do that work. If it is in the consultant’s scope, why isn’t it done yet? If it is not in consultant’s scope, is there a threat that the client might demand they perform it regardless, if the consultant is recommending it? Is the consultant simply recommending it to drum up more work? A little peril there.

#3 using one is a bit more ambiguous and undemanding. Not volunteering it, just putting it out there for someone to run with if they think it is a good idea.

If you feel strongly that a particular party should conduct a specific task, then by all means, provide that direction. Adding clarity and advancing projects thoughtfully is your purpose. If not, and you are simply voicing opinions and putting ideas on the table that may or may not be implemented by one party or another, consider using one.

They

It seems annoying when people, good-hearted though they may be, take pains to present or alternate both genders when writing examples. He, she, s/he, she and/or he or umpteen other painful variations. Ugh. Trying to choose these properly incurs too much decision fatigue, especially if one needs to figure out which to use first or count how many times each has been used in the sake of fairness.

For engineers interested simply in constructing technical engines of improvement for humanity, forget those levels of gender-specific detail. Just throw the third person plural (they) at every unspecific example, regardless of gender or quantity. Is it wrong? Not certain, but they can be a time and focus saver.

Summary

Your score in the Trust Equation impacts your effectiveness as someone providing value to clients, your team and the world at large; all of which stand to benefit from your talents. Thus, carefully make appropriate personal pronoun selections to drive (S)elf-focus down and (F)amiliarity up. The Trust Equation video provides a brief introduction to these principles. Doubtless delving into it deeper will allow you to discover more ways to craft your language and increase its impact.