Belligerence Is A No-Win Opener

Dear Miss Manners: I have noticed that many people regard discourteous and even abusive treatment of our natural environment as less objectionable than similar treatment directed towards humans.

For example, clearcutting old-growth redwoods incites less emotion in many people than their neighbor’s untidy lawn.

Similarly, an act which would be considered offensive if performed by a human is not considered offensive if performed by a machine.

For example, driving a car is considered benign, whereas obvious flatulence is not. Using a leafblower is considered unexceptional, whereas a person making that kind of noise would soon end up in jail or the loony bin. Although both machines and humans produce noise and air pollution, machines produce far more and few object. This is an era where ecological abuse will inevitably affect the human race eventually.

Gentle Reader: Yes, yes, but let us not get overexcited and annoy people by overstating the case. Miss Manners would be happy to help, if only you would state your concerns calmly and reasonably.

First, Miss Manners hopes you mean treating the environment well is extremely important - not that it is more important than treating people well. She doesn’t want to see the natural environment chopped up. But neither she nor anyone you hope to convince considers this worse than chopping up people.

Machinery is not responsible for its own design or use; people are. If a machine makes pollution, you should be interested in having it redesigned. If it is misused, you want to discourage people from misusing it.

The reason Miss Manners is quibbling about your wording is that etiquette is a valuable tool for people who want to effect change. You don’t arouse the proper emotions in people by bristling at them. Arguments offered in a polite, reasonable way that respectfully presume that people want to do good once they understand what it is are remarkably more successful than scattershot attacks.

Dear Miss Manners: Our company had one of those self-review days where we looked at where we had come financially and on a personnel basis, and where we were headed. A senior official rhymed off a group of newcomers to the company - getting one name wrong and missing another altogether. This official then went on to praise a handful of people for their work, while neglecting others who had (in the estimation of a number of their colleagues) done work of at least equal caliber, and ignoring many others who work truly hard every day.

There were special awards for outstanding work, and I don’t think a single person begrudged anyone those citations. However, I think there should have been a better way before that to congratulate people without making anyone feel left out. As it was, several egos were crushed and feelings hurt - unnecessarily, I think.

What should the official have done?

Gentle Reader: If there is anything more frightening in the ordinary workaday world than a boss trying to be cute, Miss Manners cannot imagine what it could be. Unless it is a boss being cute about people whose names he has not bothered to learn properly.

An annual review ought to be conducted seriously. Miss Manners sees nothing wrong with singling out certain workers for awards, although this, too, was botched if many there feel outstanding work was ignored. And formal thanks should always be given to the workers as a whole.

Giving this event the atmosphere of a children’s birthday party, ditty and all, creates the expectation that the point was to go around the room giving everyone a turn, making everyone equally happy. That is properly the point of an office party, or better yet an announcement of bonuses or paid vacations, not of a review session.

The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = Judith Martin United Features Syndicate