필사 모드: People Matter Most — Considerate Writing and Speaking

Introduction — Perfect Code, a Wounded Colleague

For a long time as a developer I held one illusion: that if the code was good, everything would be fine. Write clean logic, handle every edge case, write thorough tests, and I believed my job was done.

Then once, in a code review, I left this comment on a colleague's PR: "Why did you write it like this? It's inefficient." Technically it wasn't wrong. But that colleague looked off all day. Later I learned the code had constraints and circumstances I didn't know about. I had seen the code but failed to see the person.

After that day I carved one thing into my mind: **at the end of every task there is always a person.** The code we write, the documents we draft, the words we say — all of it is eventually read, heard, and felt by someone. This essay is about communication that does not miss that person, that is, considerate writing and speaking.

The Moment You Mind Only the Code and Miss the Person

Engineers often treat accuracy as the supreme virtue. Accuracy matters, no doubt. But accuracy is not the same as good communication. The same content can help someone grow or shrink them, depending on how it is delivered.

Take code review. The two comments below point out the same problem.

- "This has an N+1 query problem. It's inefficient."

- "Here a query runs inside the loop, which could cause an N+1 problem. What if we changed it to fetch in one go?"

Same content, completely different feeling. The first is a verdict; the second is a proposal. The first says "you're wrong"; the second says "this seems like it would be better."

What's interesting is that the second is even more effective. When people feel attacked they get defensive, and in a defensive state they don't learn well. Consideration is not merely a matter of kindness; it is also a matter of efficiency — of getting the message to actually land.

In Project Aristotle, Google's multi-year study of team effectiveness, the single most powerful factor was not a flashy roster of talent but psychological safety: the belief that you won't be blamed for a mistake, the sense that it's safe to speak honestly. Considerate communication is the brick that builds this safety.

Writing That Considers the Reader

Unlike speech, writing leaves the writer absent from the scene. If a misunderstanding arises, you can't correct it on the spot. That is why consideration matters even more in writing. Writing while picturing the reader is the start of good writing.

Think of the Reader's Context First

The most common mistake in technical writing is assuming "what I know, the other person knows too." This is called the curse of knowledge. Once you know something, it's hard to return to not knowing it, so you forget what a beginner doesn't know. Good writing first gauges where the reader starts from.

Conclusion First, Reasons Later

The core of writing that considers busy people is structure: put the conclusion at the front. Like the inverted pyramid newspaper reporters use, say the most important thing first and push details to the back. Letting the reader grasp the gist from just the first paragraph is consideration.

One Thing Per Sentence

A long, tangled sentence may be clear in the writer's head but is a maze for the reader. Carry one message per sentence and it becomes far easier to read.

Active Voice and Concreteness

"A problem occurred" is worse than "the deploy script failed to read the environment variable." When it's clear who did what, the reader doesn't have to guess. Vagueness offloads the burden of interpretation onto the reader.

Speaking That Considers the Listener

Speech is more immediate than writing, and that much harder to take back. Words once uttered can't be gathered up again. So consideration in speaking begins with pacing.

Listen First

The first step of considerate speaking is not speaking but listening. Only by first hearing what the other person wants and worries about can you say something that fits. Often we prepare our next line before the other person has even finished. That isn't listening; it's waiting.

When Indirectness and Softness Are Needed

Bluntness is not always good. Especially when delivering a negative message, softness is a lubricant. Instead of "that won't work," saying "that approach is possible too, but here's what concerns me" makes the other person feel considered together with, rather than rejected.

But it's a problem when softness degrades into vagueness. This is a frequent trap in Korean and Japanese styles of communication: so much indirectness that the core point never gets through. Consideration and clarity are not an either-or. Speaking gently while conveying the core clearly is the real consideration.

Express Empathy First

When someone is in a hard spot, acknowledging their feeling before offering a solution makes a big difference. A single "that must have been really frustrating" can be a greater comfort than advice that follows immediately. People want to be understood before they want their problem solved.

The Skill of Deep Listening — Active Listening

I said earlier to "listen first," but listening well is a harder skill than it seems. Just keeping your mouth shut and listening in order to understand what the other person is really trying to say are completely different. The latter is called active listening.

The core of this concept, formulated by psychologist Carl Rogers, is to listen to understand, not to evaluate. We usually judge while listening: "that's wrong," "I'd have done it differently." With this voice of judgment switched on, only half of what the other person says actually comes in.

Here is how to practice active listening:

- Don't interrupt until they finish. Endure one or two seconds of silence.

- Reflect what you heard in your own words to confirm. "So you're saying this part was frustrating, right?"

- Listen for emotion, not just facts. Try to read the heart beyond the content of the words.

- Don't rush to a solution. People often want to be heard, not answered.

The second one, reflecting back, is especially powerful. The other person feels the relief of being accurately understood, and any misunderstanding is corrected on the spot. This is not merely a technique but an expression of consideration: "I'm trying to understand you."

There is an interesting body of research: the very act of being listened to makes the speaker's thinking clearer and less extreme. People think more deeply in front of a good listener. That is, listening well is not only consideration for the other person but also a gift that leads them toward better thinking.

How to Communicate Through Documents — Consideration in an Async Era

In an era where remote work and global collaboration are everyday, the ability to communicate through documents matters more and more. Documents cross time zones, stand in for memory, and spare you from saying the same thing many times. Communicating through documents is itself a consideration that saves colleagues' time.

Good document communication has a few principles.

| Situation | Inconsiderate way | Considerate way |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Asking a question | Why doesn't this work? | State what you tried and what error appeared |

| Sharing a decision | Announce only the conclusion | Record the background, alternatives considered, and reason |

| After a meeting | Rely on memory | Write up decisions and next steps in a document |

| Requesting help | Got a minute? | Specify what, by when, and how much is needed |

Consideration shows especially in how you ask questions. The core of the much-cited "art of asking questions" is to include enough context that the answerer needn't ask back. Writing what you were trying to do, what you tried, and what result you got greatly reduces the answerer's burden. This is consideration in async collaboration.

Engineering leader Will Larson writes that a good document is not merely a vessel for information but a consideration for future colleagues and for your future self. One line written well today saves someone an hour six months from now.

Nonverbal Consideration — The Message Beyond Words

Consideration is not only in the content of words. The claim often cited from Mehrabian's research, that "tone and expression convey more than the content of words," is frequently exaggerated in citation, but that nonverbal cues are powerful signals is clear. The same "it's fine" conveys the opposite depending on whether it's said with a warm or a cold expression.

In the remote-work era this becomes a trickier problem, because text has neither expression nor tone. So when communicating by message, you need to deliberately express warmth.

- Add a word beyond a cold one-liner ("ok," "got it") — "Got it, thanks!"

- Supplement tone with emojis or light phrasing (when it fits the context).

- Add a reason and thanks to a request or a refusal.

Text especially tends to be read negatively. The same sentence can be interpreted coldly depending on the reader's mood. This is called negativity bias. So in text, writing a touch warmer than intended is the way to strike a balance.

The same goes for voice and video calls. One small reaction — turning the camera on and nodding — sends the speaker a big signal: "I'm listening to you." Sending the signal that you're listening is itself consideration.

Consideration Across Cultures and Contexts

One thing I learned working at LINE is that the form of consideration differs by culture. Korean and Japanese communication lean heavily on context. They expect you to understand without being told, avoid direct refusals, and value the mood. Anthropologist Edward Hall called this a high-context culture.

By contrast, English-language, especially American-style communication is closer to low-context. What isn't said is treated as not conveyed, and clarity is held a virtue.

Without knowing this difference, misunderstandings arise. When someone from a high-context culture says "I'll look into it," it may in fact be a soft refusal, yet someone from a low-context culture takes it as a yes. Conversely, the direct feedback of a low-context culture can feel like an attack to someone from a high-context culture.

Real consideration gauges the other person's cultural context. The more globally you collaborate, the more you must remember that "consideration in my style" may not be consideration to the other. On a multinational team, speaking a little more clearly, with fewer assumptions, actually becomes consideration. "They'll get it without my saying so" works only within the same culture.

The Consideration of Silence and Timing

In consideration, when you say something matters as much as what you say. Even the most correct words become a wound if you miss the moment, and a gift if you hit it.

Take the timing of feedback. Pour sharp criticism on someone the instant their talk ends and tension has just released, and even correct content won't land. Give them a moment to catch their breath, or set up a separate time, and the same words are heard far better.

Silence, too, can be consideration. The silence of not cutting in while the other person is finding their own answer. The silence of not pressing when they need time to compose their feelings. This is why good coaches and counselors use silence well. Suppressing the urge to fill every empty space with your own words is also consideration.

But as said in the traps section, silence must not become an excuse for avoidance. The silence of consideration and the silence of avoidance are different. The former is for the other person; the latter is to dodge your own discomfort.

Balancing Honesty and Consideration

Here we must clear up an important misunderstanding. Consideration is not saying only pleasant things. Real consideration in fact includes the courage to deliver an uncomfortable truth.

In Radical Candor, Kim Scott explains this balance along two axes. One is "care personally," the other is "challenge directly." When both are high, you get real candor.

- Neither care nor challenge: manipulative insincerity

- Care but no challenge: ruinous empathy (avoiding the truth in the name of keeping things nice)

- Challenge but no care: obnoxious aggression

- Both care and challenge: radical candor (real consideration)

What's interesting is that many people mistake "ruinous empathy" for consideration. Hiding the truth because the other person won't want to hear it looks like kindness, but over the long run it blocks their growth. Real consideration sometimes says the uncomfortable thing, but says it from a wish for that person to do well.

I put it this way: **consideration is not a matter of what you say but of why you say it.** The same criticism, voiced from a desire to put someone down, is an attack; voiced from a desire for them to get better, it is a gift.

Cases and Dialogue Examples

Let us move abstract principles into concrete scenes.

Case 1: To a Colleague Who Missed a Deadline

Inconsiderate way:

> Why are you late again? Now the whole schedule slips.

Considerate way:

> This timeline was tight. Could we look together at where you got stuck? Next time something similar comes up, if you let me know early, I think we can adjust together.

The second does not waive accountability. It asks for accountability, but asks while placing the other person as a teammate, not an enemy.

Case 2: Responding to an Opinion You Disagree With

Inconsiderate way:

> That's wrong.

Considerate way:

> I understand that view too. Still, this part concerns me — how do you see it?

Voicing disagreement and dismissing the person are different. You can disagree with the opinion while respecting the person.

Case 3: Be Specific Even When Praising

"Nice work" is worse than "I really liked how you handled the edge case here in advance." Specific praise lets the other person know exactly what they did well, and makes them repeat that behavior. Vague praise is pleasant to hear but doesn't translate into learning.

Praise and Recognition — The Consideration We Often Forget

When we hear "consideration," we usually think only of softening a negative message. But delivering a positive message well is equally important consideration. If anything, we're often good at criticism yet stingy with praise.

Good praise has a few principles.

- Be specific. Not "nice work" but "your handling of this part was really clean."

- Acknowledge not only the result but the process and effort. Not "you got lucky" but "I can see you kept at it."

- Do it in time. Praise right after the task ends is far more effective than praise a month later.

- Do it publicly, but within a line that doesn't make the person uncomfortable.

Carol Dweck's research on the growth mindset shows that the manner of praise matters. Rather than praising innate talent ("you're smart"), praising effort and process ("you worked hard") makes people grow more boldly and resiliently. That is, what you praise affects the other person's attitude.

Recognition is a broader concept than praise: acknowledging the other person's presence and contribution. "This worked because you were here," "your input was a big help." People lose motivation most when they feel unseen. Recognition is a signal to the other: "I see you."

At LINE, I was most motivated working under a leader who never missed acknowledging even small contributions. Not a big reward, but the sense of being recognized is what moves people. Recognition is the most powerful consideration that costs nothing.

Apology and Conflict — The Hardest Moments for Consideration

The hardest yet most important moments for consideration are conflicts and mistakes. Anyone can be kind when all is smooth. Real consideration shows in uncomfortable moments.

First, let us talk about apology. A good apology has a formula.

- Concretely admit what you did wrong. Not "sorry" but "I'm sorry I cut off your opinion in yesterday's meeting."

- Don't mix in excuses. "I'm sorry, but that was because you..." is not an apology but shifting blame.

- Acknowledge the impact. "So you probably felt dismissed."

- Promise the next step. "From now on I'll listen all the way through before speaking."

A bad apology is a conditional one like "I'm sorry if you felt bad." This is a sly dodge that pins responsibility on the other person's feelings. A real apology starts from admitting your own action.

Consideration in conflict is similar. The most important thing in handling conflict is to separate the problem from the person. It is a principle the negotiation classic Getting to Yes emphasizes: "Attack the problem, not the person." Hard on the issue, soft on the person.

Concretely, you might say: "I'm not blaming you — I want us to figure out together how to solve this situation." This one line changes the temperature of the conversation. The other person drops their defenses, and you can look at the problem together.

And don't forget that conflict itself is not bad. Healthy conflict leads to better decisions. Consideration is not avoiding conflict but handling it in a way that doesn't hurt people.

A Considerate Communication Checklist

Questions to ask yourself before you speak or send.

- Have I gauged the other person's context enough?

- Does this message deliver the conclusion first?

- If it's criticism, is it aimed at the issue, not the person?

- Is my reason for saying this for the other person, or to vent my own feelings?

- Is it gentle yet clear at the core? Did I perhaps soften so much that the core blurred?

- Can the listener/reader understand without follow-up questions?

- Before sending in a rush, did I read it once more?

The last item is especially important. A message sent while emotions run high almost always ends in regret. The more important the message, the more a habit of letting it sit, then rereading, prevents a big accident.

The Trap — The Paradox of Over-Consideration

Consideration has traps too. For a balanced view, let me note them.

First, excessive softness ruins communication. As said, if you indirect-talk too much in the name of consideration, the core doesn't get through. The other person, mistaking it for praise, repeats the same mistake. The purpose of consideration is not to make the other person feel good but to convey the truth to them effectively.

Second, consideration that tries to satisfy everyone ends up satisfying no one. Trying not to hurt anyone's feelings makes messages bland and decisions slow. Sometimes you have to speak clearly even at the cost of someone's discomfort.

Third, consideration that becomes self-sacrifice is unsustainable. If you always put others first until you're depleted, eventually you won't even have the energy to be considerate. Considering yourself is part of consideration too.

Fourth, beware of avoidance disguised as consideration. The thought "let's not ruin the mood by saying it" sometimes blocks the very feedback that's needed. Silence is not always consideration.

Frequently Asked Questions

When I'm considerate I end up unable to say what needs saying.

That's likely not consideration but avoidance. Real consideration is not withholding what needs saying but saying it in a way the other person can accept. Don't drop the content; change the delivery. Like turning "this is a problem" into "this part concerns me — can we look at it together?"

I got feedback that I'm too indirect.

Practice saying the core first. Start gently, but put the conclusion within one sentence. Instead of "I considered many things, and there are various circumstances...", say "To put the conclusion first, I think this needs to be redone. The reason is...". Gentleness and clarity coexist.

People keep reading my writing as cold.

Remember that text tends to be read negatively. Write a touch warmer than intended; add a word. And before sending an important message, imagine once "how would I feel receiving this?"

Isn't it just my loss if the other person isn't considerate back?

Short term, it can feel that way. But over the long run, consideration returns as the asset of trust. And this isn't a call to be infinitely considerate to everyone. As said in the traps section, one-sided consideration that depletes you is unsustainable. Be considerate while keeping healthy boundaries.

Does communication ability matter in the AI era?

It matters more, if anything. The more technical work is automated, the higher the value of grasping people's intent accurately and coordinating between people. Deciding what to build, resolving conflict, and building trust remain the work of humans.

A Collection of Considerate Phrasings by Situation

To move theory into practice, I've collected inconsiderate and considerate phrasings for situations you'll often meet. Rather than using them verbatim, adapt them to your own way of speaking.

When Refusing

- Inconsiderate: "That won't work."

- Considerate: "I fully understand that direction. It just seems hard right now for these reasons — shall we look for another way together?"

When Asking for Help

- Inconsiderate: "Do this for me."

- Considerate: "I'm stuck on this part — could you spare about 30 minutes? It's not urgent, so let me know whenever's convenient."

When Pointing Out a Mistake

- Inconsiderate: "This is wrong here."

- Considerate: "This part seems to behave differently from the intent. What if we changed it like this?"

When You Disagree

- Inconsiderate: "That's not it."

- Considerate: "That view has merit too. I see it a bit differently — would you hear my thought as well?"

When Following Up

- Inconsiderate: "Still not done?"

- Considerate: "Could you share the progress? If something's blocking you, we can look at it together."

When Receiving Feedback

- Inconsiderate: "That's not my fault."

- Considerate: "Thanks for telling me. I did miss something there. I'll try it this way next time."

Look at these phrasings and there's a common pattern: place the other as a teammate, convey the reason alongside, propose the next action, and express thanks. Remember just these four and most conversations soften.

Consideration Starts from Small Habits

You don't need grand change. The path to being a considerate communicator is the accumulation of small habits. Here are the habits I actually try to build.

- Before sending a message, pause three seconds and imagine "how will they receive this?"

- Add a word instead of a cold one-liner.

- Before sending criticism, see if you can rewrite the same content as a proposal.

- In a meeting, deliberately listen all the way through once and reflect back to confirm.

- When you spot a colleague's small achievement, praise it specifically that same day.

- A message written while emotions run high — don't send it; let it sit overnight.

- When helped, thank specifically for what helped.

Each of these is trivial on its own. But repeated daily, they create the impression others feel of "someone easy to work with." And that impression becomes trust, returning as people who'll be on your side in hard moments.

Consideration is, in the end, a long-term investment in relationships. In the moment it looks like the trouble of writing one more word, but over the long run it's the highest-return investment.

Consideration by Medium — The Question of Where You Speak

The same message demands a different mode of consideration depending on which medium you deliver it through, because each medium has different strengths and weaknesses.

In Person

- Strength: expression, tone, and immediate reaction are possible.

- Consideration point: read the other's nonverbal signals and listen without interrupting.

- Caution: emotions can run high, so for hard conversations, settle your mind before going in.

Phone/Voice

- Strength: no expression, but you can convey warmth through tone.

- Consideration point: be conscious of your voice's tone and don't fear silence.

- Caution: first check whether the other person can take a call right now.

Text (Messenger/Email)

- Strength: it leaves a record and the other can read when convenient.

- Consideration point: write a touch warmer so it isn't read as cold.

- Caution: don't handle complex or emotional topics over text.

Video Call

- Strength: even remotely you can share expression and reaction.

- Consideration point: nod, and distribute speaking opportunities evenly.

- Caution: speech overlaps easily, so leave the room to yield a beat.

The core principle is this: the harder and more emotional the conversation, the more it belongs in person or by voice; the simpler the information transfer, the more it belongs in text. Tossing sensitive feedback into a messenger may look efficient, but it's an inconsiderate choice. Choosing the medium is itself the start of consideration.

One more thing: it's important to notice the signal to switch media. When the same misunderstanding repeats two or three times over text, that's a signal to "now call or meet in person." Don't cling to the limits of text; the flexibility to move to a richer medium is consideration.

Closing — What Remains in the End Is People

Technology changes fast. The framework you learned today will be outdated in a few years. But the attitude toward people, the ability to communicate with consideration, does not lose its value with time. If anything, the more AI writes code for us, the more precious the ability to connect person to person becomes.

I still sometimes recall that code review. What I missed that day was not the code's context but the person's heart. Doing a job well doesn't only mean a good deliverable; it also means getting along with the people around that work.

Before sending the message you're about to send today, read it once more. See whether there's a person inside it. People matter most.

Let me gather the core of this essay one last time.

- Think of the person receiving the accuracy as much as the accuracy itself.

- Aim criticism at the issue, not the person.

- Be gentle yet convey the core clearly.

- Listen first, and reflect back what you heard to confirm.

- Don't be stingy with praise and recognition.

- When writing, write a touch warmer than intended.

- Deliver the conclusion first, the reasons later.

- When apologizing, admit the fault and impact without excuses.

- In conflict, attack the problem, not the person.

- The harder and more emotional the conversation, the more carefully choose the medium.

- Let a message written while emotions run high sit overnight.

- Gauge the other's cultural context and adjust the mode of consideration.

Finally, I'll close by proposing one small practice. Today, even just once, pause three seconds before sending a message to someone: "How will the person receiving this feel?" As those three seconds accumulate, before you know it you'll have become someone people want to work with.

Consideration is not a grand talent. It is a small daily choice. One word warmer, one beat slower, one more time from the other's point of view. These small choices accumulate into who we are as a colleague and as a person.

No matter how far technology advances, in the end we work with people and live with people. So let us aim even a fraction of the care we put into polishing code toward people. That is the path to making something that lasts.

And at the end of that path we realize: the best deliverables come from a heart for people. That people matter most is, in the end, also the secret of good work.

References

- Kim Scott, Radical Candor — the balance of care and challenge: https://www.radicalcandor.com/

- Google, Project Aristotle (psychological safety): https://rework.withgoogle.com/print/guides/5721312655835136/

- Amy Edmondson, research on psychological safety: https://hbr.org/2023/02/what-is-psychological-safety

- Will Larson, writing as a tool for thinking and collaboration: https://lethain.com/

- Steven Pinker, the curse of knowledge and writing: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/26/steven-pinker-curse-of-knowledge

- How To Ask Questions The Smart Way: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

- HBR, The Power of Listening in Helping People Change: https://hbr.org/2018/05/the-power-of-listening-in-helping-people-change

- Carol Dweck, Growth Mindset / the manner of praise: https://www.mindsetworks.com/science/

- Edward Hall, high-context vs low-context cultures: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-context_and_low-context_cultures

- Roger Fisher & William Ury, Getting to Yes — separating people from the problem: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/shop/getting-to-yes/