The real problem behind shifting instructions, personality judgments, and bans on generative AI
Some people are told that they “do not listen to what others say.”
But if you look closely, are they really not listening?
In many cases, they are listening to what was actually said. They are then trying to separate the purpose, target, permissions, and definition of done. They are trying not to proceed on their own with a risky task.
And yet, later they are told, “That is not what I meant,” “You should normally understand that,” or “This is the kind of thing you are not doing properly.”
That structure wears people down.
The problem is not that the employee refuses to listen.
The problem is that something that was never said is later treated as if it had been said from the start.
For example: “Make it so I can see the results in Forms”
Suppose someone asks:
Make it so I can see the results in Forms.
The recipient can reasonably interpret that as:
They want to know how to view the response results in Microsoft Forms.
In Microsoft Forms, you can open a form and select “View responses” to see an overview and individual results. Microsoft’s official support documentation also explains the process as opening the form and selecting “View responses.”[^ms-results]
So if the recipient answers, “Use View responses,” that is a natural response to the original request.
But later the requester says:
No, I mean: why is it not appearing under “Forms shared with me” on the Forms home page? I want it to show up there.
That is a different issue.
“Viewing response results” and “making a form appear in the shared list on the Forms home page” are not the same thing.
The latter involves collaboration and sharing permissions.
With Microsoft Forms collaboration, co-authors can add content to the form, analyze responses, and share the form. Microsoft also explains that co-authors who can access the collaboration link can view and edit both questions and response data.[^ms-collab]
In other words, this is not merely “making it visible.”
It is granting permissions.
Granting permissions based on an ambiguous request is risky.
Who is the target person? Is view-only access enough? Is co-author access required? Is it acceptable for the person to see response data? Should the whole organization have access, or only specific people? Does “done” mean “the results can be viewed,” or “the form appears in the shared list on the Forms home page”?
Proceeding without confirming these points is actually more dangerous.
It is not “refusing to listen”; you cannot listen to what was never said
In this kind of trouble, the recipient is often labeled as someone who “does not listen.”
But in practice, the structure is often this:
- The requester makes a vague request.
- The recipient interprets it naturally within what was actually said.
- The requester later adds the real objective.
- The added condition is treated as if it had been shared from the beginning.
- The recipient is blamed for “not understanding” or “not listening.”
This is not only a problem with the recipient’s comprehension.
The request was not specific enough.
An objective that exists only in someone’s head is not an instruction until it is communicated.
If all someone says is, “Make it so I can see the results in Forms,” you cannot know whether they mean:
- viewing the response screen,
- exporting to Excel,
- creating a sharing link,
- adding someone as a co-author,
- or making the form appear in the shared list on the Forms home page.
If the requester later says, “You should normally understand that,” the recipient gets worn down.
No matter how carefully they listen, they cannot win if unstated assumptions are added afterward.
It gets even worse when the issue turns into a personality judgment
Ideally, the matter could end like this:
Sorry, my wording was unclear. I did not mean how to view the results; I meant I want the form to appear in the shared list on the Forms home page. Since that involves co-author permissions, could you check the procedure?
That would simply be a work clarification.
But in reality, the conversation can jump somewhere else:
This kind of thing is not being done properly.
That is why IT says we cannot allow generative AI.
That is the problem with you.
That is a major leap.
The issue here is not whether generative AI should be allowed.
The issue is that:
- the request was vague,
- “viewing results” and “co-authoring” were different tasks,
- and granting permissions required confirmation.
In fact, using generative AI safely also requires clear instructions.
What information may be entered? What information must not be entered? How much may be delegated to AI? What must a human verify? Who has final responsibility? How should logs be retained?
An organization that cannot design these rules may become afraid of AI and ban it entirely.
So the real problem is not simply that AI is dangerous.
The real problem is that the organization has not defined requirements or designed responsibility for using AI.
Blaming an individual’s personality prevents the system from improving
When problems like this happen, workplaces often quickly turn them into judgments about the individual.
- They do not listen.
- They are not obedient.
- They do not understand.
- They are inattentive.
- They are not doing things properly.
The moment it becomes a personality issue, improvement stops.
That is because the proposed countermeasures become things like:
- listen properly,
- be more careful,
- be more conscious,
- confirm more,
- do not rely on AI.
None of these prevents recurrence.
What should actually be examined is the structure of the request.
- Was the purpose clear?
- Was the target clear?
- Was it clear which screen or location was being discussed?
- Was the permission scope clear?
- Was the definition of done clear?
- Was there an atmosphere in which the recipient could ask questions?
- When the requester added something later, did they acknowledge that their original explanation had been insufficient?
If these points are not examined, the same problem will happen again.
An organization that blames personalities does not improve its systems. Because the system does not improve, the same problem happens again. Then someone else’s personality gets blamed.
That is workplace dark magic.
Are senior people evaluated on how they communicate downward?
This problem is not merely about compatibility between two people.
At its core, it is a problem in which the communication quality of senior people is not being evaluated.
Company evaluations tend to focus on visible results.
- Did they meet deadlines?
- Did they run the meeting?
- Did they submit the materials?
- Are their subordinates moving?
- Did they handle problems?
But the interactions behind those results are harder to see.
- Were the instructions clear?
- Were requirements added after the fact?
- Did they intrude on the other person’s breaks or concentration?
- Did they create an atmosphere where questions were easy to ask?
- Could they acknowledge when their own explanation was insufficient?
- Could they bring the discussion back to working conditions instead of making it a personality judgment?
Gallup says that 70% of the variance in team engagement is related to management. Managers create conditions that can improve or worsen the state of a team.[^gallup]
Google re:Work also lists psychological safety, dependability, and structure and clarity among the important dynamics of effective teams. In particular, “structure and clarity” includes understanding expectations, processes, and outcomes.[^google-rework]
So how a senior person asks a junior person to do work should be an important evaluation criterion.
The goal is not to promote people simply because they can speak harshly.
Organizations need to promote people who can move others safely.
The reverse-assertive workplace
Workplaces often demand assertiveness only from people lower in the hierarchy.
- Report, communicate, and consult properly.
- Understand the other person’s intent.
- Think about how you say things.
- Confirm details.
- Accept feedback honestly.
But what about the person above?
- They throw out vague requests.
- They add requirements later.
- They do not apologize.
- They vent emotions in the form of work criticism.
- They send long corrective messages during someone else’s break.
- They jump from a task issue to personality or an AI ban.
That is not assertive communication.
Assertive communication means clearly expressing your values and requests while also respecting the other person’s values and requests. Aggressive communication, by contrast, tends to express one’s own opinions and desires while overlooking the other person’s needs and value.[^assertive]
So if only the lower-status person is told to “do things properly,” while the upper side’s poor request quality and poor feedback quality are never questioned, that is reverse assertiveness.
Consideration is demanded only from below, while carelessness above is treated as management.
That wears down the people below.
Promoting this kind of person is especially dangerous
The higher someone moves in an organization, the more important their ability to hand work to other people becomes compared with their ability to do the work personally.
That is why it is dangerous to promote people who:
- make vague requests,
- add conditions afterward,
- refuse to acknowledge their own lack of explanation,
- blame the subordinate’s comprehension or personality,
- overwrite the issue with a lecture,
- turn emotion into work criticism,
- turn system problems into personal problems.
From the outside, these people can look like “managers who are doing their job.”
They speak firmly. They point out risks. They coach subordinates. They do not overlook problems.
But in reality, the people below may simply be translating, filling gaps, processing emotions, and cleaning up the mess.
Even if the manager’s instructions are vague, the subordinate somehow turns them into a workable result. Even if the manager adds requirements later, the subordinate absorbs the change. Even if the manager never apologizes, the subordinate swallows the frustration.
Then the evaluation may look like this:
The manager is managing.
The subordinate does not listen.
But the reality may be the opposite:
The subordinate is absorbing the manager’s lack of definition.
If an organization misreads this, it will increasingly move in a direction that wears people down.
The management abilities that should actually be evaluated
What organizations should really evaluate are abilities such as:
- clarifying the purpose,
- clarifying the target,
- separating permission scopes,
- expressing the definition of done,
- acknowledging when one’s own explanation was insufficient,
- adding missing information without blaming the other person,
- creating an atmosphere where recipients can ask questions,
- moving a problem back from personality to process.
A manager does not merely need the ability to speak forcefully.
A manager needs the ability to move people safely.
If someone without that ability is promoted, the people below get exhausted. Then that exhaustion is labeled “mentally weak,” “defiant,” or “does not listen.”
An organization cannot grow that way.
Defense: break a vague request into 5 points
To avoid being worn down by vague requests, it is often better to return the conversation to working conditions than to argue emotionally.
Check these 5 points:
- Purpose
- Target
- Screen or location
- Permission scope
- Definition of done
In this example, you could say:
Just to confirm, my understanding is that the request is not simply to make the response results viewable, but to make the form appear under “Forms shared with me” on the Forms home page. Is that correct?
If so, this involves granting co-author permissions, so I will confirm the target form, target person, and required permission scope before proceeding.
That is not defiance.
It is a safety check.
When permissions are involved, acting on nothing more than “make it visible” is more dangerous.
Conclusion: the person accused of not listening may actually be the person who sees the structure
Among people who are told that they “do not listen,” some are actually listening very carefully.
They simply do not swallow the words as-is; they translate them into structure.
- What is the purpose?
- Who is the target?
- What counts as done?
- How far do the permissions extend?
- Who will be responsible afterward?
Because they can see these questions, they do not proceed carelessly.
If an organization labels that as “not obedient” or “not listening,” it loses an important defensive function.
The real problem is not that the employee refuses to listen.
The real problem is that a senior person later treats something they never said as an existing premise, then turns the gap into a problem with the other person’s comprehension or personality.
And if that behavior is never evaluated and expands through promotion, the damage grows.
Workplaces that wear people down tend to blame individual personalities.
Workplaces that make people’s lives a little easier improve requests, permissions, and definitions of done.
So the first thing to examine is not personality.
It is the quality of the instruction.
References
[^ms-results]: Microsoft Support, “Check and share your form results.” https://support.microsoft.com/en-US/Forms/check-and-share-your-form-results [^ms-collab]: Microsoft Support, “Share a form or quiz to collaborate.” https://support.microsoft.com/en-US/Forms/share-a-form-or-quiz-to-collaborate [^gallup]: Gallup, “Who's Responsible for Employee Engagement,” updated November 19, 2024. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/266822/engaged-employees-differently.aspx [^google-rework]: Google re:Work, “Understand team effectiveness.” https://rework.withgoogle.com/intl/en/guides/understand-team-effectiveness [^assertive]: The University of Toledo Counseling Center, “Communication Styles.” https://www.utoledo.edu/studentaffairs/counseling/bridge/communication-styles.html
