[faut_reflechir]

> If you agree with an idea X that Bob said, say “I agree with the idea X”, don’t say “I agree with Bob”. The former states your advocacy; the latter is dividing the group into teams.

Not sure I agree with this one. The problem with the former framing is that Bob might perceive it as failing to credit him for his idea (or even taking credit for it).

[waqf]

That was my first reaction too, but on reflection I think the cases are distinguishable. I do say the words "I agree with <Bob>" in meetings, but only when I am acknowledging (and thereby unintentionally endorsing) that there's a difference of opinion. Usually the subject of the difference is already on the table and doesn't need to be spelled out.

By contrast, when I am crediting an idea it's because I had to reintroduce it when it seems to have been dropped; it's not the current subject of discussion. So I say something like "I liked <Bob>'s idea from earlier, to <frobnicate all the bangwoozles with imaginary polarity>".

[alar44]

Agreed. It's completely dependant on context. Give credit where credit is due. One of my reports had a great idea a few weeks ago and I had him implement it on his own. Knocked it out of the park. When speaking with him I refer to it as "his" improvement. It fires him up that it's his.

People need to be able to take credit for things. If they can't, they can feel like they are just a cog and what they do doesn't matter.