I would appreciate the thoughtful gesture, but I would rather have 20 more minutes with my signifiant other than an umbrella. And that's the point of the article. Disrupting a work pipeline to answer an executive question might be fitting here. Sure they would have liked the answer to their question (umbrella) but they didn't want to lose 20 person hours to that question.

Good communication is key.

And spend 20 mins less waiting in there rain for them

The category error I'm highlighting is conflating a relationship with management.

Seems to be an epidemic of that around here.

> she did it because this is clearly not the first time so it makes sense for there to be a spare umbrella.

Where are you getting this information from?

IMO there is nothing wrong with the comment you're replying to. They didn't say that they didn't appreciate the gesture. Just that it taught them that they needed to be more explicit about the priorities of requests.

> Where are you getting this information from?

A different thread of conversation in this post is arguing over what good faith means.

The above poster is clearly not showing good faith because they're assuming negative behaviors. That's where they got the information from.

> Where are you getting this information from?

The very first clause in their remark gives that this is a typical and repeated scenario.

> They didn't say that they didn't appreciate the gesture

Neither did I. The point being made is that social relationships are not a valid analog for senior management.

> This negative framing is terribly disheartening. She went to the time and trouble to pick out an umbrella especially for you, and she did it because this is clearly not the first time so it makes sense for there to be a spare umbrella.

What a giant leap. Thinking like that is a sure fire way to have relationship problems.

Respecting your partner's executive choices and self-assigned preferences, and recognising that they follow motivations of their own, leads to relationship problems?

Only for those carrying the controlling/abusive danger flag.

> Respecting your partner's executive choices and self-assigned preferences, and recognising that they follow motivations of their own, leads to relationship problems?

Not what I said, and quite unrelated.[1] Moreover, it is not what you said, even if that's what you meant. You said:

> She went to the time and trouble to pick out an umbrella especially for you, and she did it because this is clearly not the first time so it makes sense for there to be a spare umbrella.

These are significant assumptions to make. Jumping to conclusions like that will lead to relationship problems.

Of course, I could go on and talk about how the behavior could be problematic even if the assumptions are true, but it depends on the particulars of the two people involved. Certainly, if the assumption is true, the behavior is not necessarily a positive one. Intentions matter. As do outcomes. Don't ignore the latter.

[1] And yes, that could trivially lead to relationship problems, and could also trivially lead to relationship bliss, given how generic your comment is.

> Jumping to conclusions like that will lead to relationship problems

Good grief. No, it will lead to a moment of amused bonding over the burgeoning umbrella collection you now share, and a perpetual anniversary in my calendar labelled "New umbrella day".

The point I'm making, and shall reiterate, is that maintenance of social relationships is utterly dissimilar to how we manage organisations.

I think that's a uncharitable reading of a post that goes:

1. I took this action.

2. It had this impact on another person.

3. I should have taken a different action!