https://www.huffpost.com/entry/okay-ok-k-workplace-language_...
OK... - "This is exasperating and I'll just accept it"
OK... - "His response was childish; moving on..."
OK? - "What you've just said appears to have no bearing on the question I asked nor the conversation at hand. Please explain how it's relevant or get on-topic."
OK? - "Did you understand? Please provide a response indicating whether you need additional information."
OK! - "I acknowledge your request and am capable and willing to fulfill it. I'm on it. I'll get it done. You can count on me."
In person, you can provide vocal inflection and facial expression to communicate which of these you intend. Over text, you're at the mercy of how the reader is feeling in the moment. Personally, I'll spend time either putting more punctuation around the "OK" to help clarify. Or I'll just go with the sentences that attempt to preclude ambiguity. Apparently (anecdotally), most people don't bother.
OK?
Anything else is reading too much into it. If I send someone an email explaining something and I get an, "OK" back, then I assume they've read it (or will read it) and I'll hear more from them if they have more to share.
When speaking in person, the "OK" itself almost completely superfluous as it's merely a vehicle for inflection and other social cues which carry the real meaning, as you noted.
> I'll just go with the sentences that attempt to preclude ambiguity.
And that's what I'd do 99% of the time, but I was specifically pointing to discussion around "OK"
Boy did I miss that memo, but it makes sense!
I mean, I was chastised for taking a picture with a Buddha even while I did my best to be polite (I knew taking photos was OK but you had to make sure you weren't standing higher than the Buddha, etc.) - to me it seems kind of arbitrary, but I don't think the people offended ("annoyed with another dumb tourist" might be more apt) were being unreasonable.
In my case it was just a move to a different country and the social norms about what was acceptable, etc. are slightly different.
I've always advocated for a "refill the coffee if you find an empty pot" rather than "refill it if you empty it" approach since the latter means you _could_ be wasting a pot of coffee if you happened to be the last to want coffee that day, but I get that people have different views.
In that situation you never refill the pot if you empty it, you empty the grinds or pour in more beans if the the machine asks.
Automated like you mention is still an exception rather than a rule.
Lately I just use a French press.
As for downvoting, I guess people thought you were being dismissive of smaller workplaces? I dunno, I'm just guessing there, since I didn't feel the need to downvote you.
Also at the big companies I've worked at often you have a small room with a self contained team and each of these teams has one of these machines.
on edit: where I'm at = Denmark.
It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to expect people to notify a coworker of things that their boss would judge the coworker for; even if it is contrary to the culture of the person doing the notification.
Does that make sense?
We should be able to interact in the best manner of the business and out coworkers. Sometimes doing that may be perceived by others around you as having crossed a line. Sometimes, there isn't a great answer.
What if bringing an office problem forth exposes that the person causing the problem has personal reasons for doing so (a disability they don't want to advertise, for example). The end situation may just be the status quo (neither the company nor the staff really want to impede the person with the disability once it becomes known), but with two people now uncomfortable either with each other, with coworkers, or both. I would say that's often a case that can be helped by being able to talk about sensitive things, but also a case where people may have good reasons for wanting their privacy (people do not always act rationally). The "right" answer is often contextual, and in some cases it may not exist.
This isn't to say that we should just forget it all. It's just that it's hard, and we should be careful before assuming even somewhat obvious statements such as yours (which I agree with) are enough.
The problem is that in some cultures it's perfectly fine to talk about things that in other cultures it's not. The solution to that is to give people a benefit of a doubt and not assume they are trying to be hurtful, even if your first response is to be hurt. We don't seem to be great at that when dealing with people from other cultures, and we're really not great about it with people of the same culture (but the same thing can apply, since people interpret culture differently).
With the addition that we're currently in a zeitgeist of being very sensitive as a society about how people feel about what has happened to them (I would argue to the point that we're ignoring intention far more than makes sense), and it can be very hard to have sensitive conversations without someone being hurt and/or repercussions resulting, even if the intention was good.