4 ms·

>This is advice for managing 2 year olds. That's exactly the vibe I got from reading this article. I immediately thought of someone trying to manage super-fra

>This is advice for managing 2 year olds. That's exactly the vibe I got from reading this article. I immediately thought of someone trying to manage super-fragile millennials who wilt and pout without constant encouragement and affirmation. If I submit I project for scrutiny, I want constructive criticism and advice. The goal should to make the project as good as it can be, not manage the feelings of emotionally challenged workers.

dwightgunning 10y ago
I've unfortunately had to manage baby boomers who'd often react this way.
derefr 10y ago
Perhaps it's like SEO, where all the low-hanging fruit is obvious and sensible, but where further optimization beyond that point is stuff that looks really odd and counter-intuitive, or like it "couldn't possibly" have any impact. Maybe people put out a 1.0 units of effort when you're just a reasonable person, but put out e.g. 1.1 units when you baby them, and so babying them is a "win" in some sense?
- StanislavPetrov 10y ago
  >Maybe people put out a 1.0 units of effort when you're just a reasonable person, but put out e.g. 1.1 units when you baby them, and so babying them is a "win" in some sense? I'd contend that any worker that you have to "baby" in a business environment to get their best effort is a worker you are better off without.
  - iopq 10y ago
    That's not true. You could probably get better output out of most employees if you baby them just right. Who doesn't like a boss that lets them do whatever as long as it's beneficial to the company?
  - derefr 10y ago
    Note that I'm talking about results, not effort. Someone could be giving their best effort already, resulting in 1.0 units of output. But babying them might be the emotional equivalent of blood-doping in a marathon, a psychological stimulus that actually partially restores or extends the willpower-resource that is spent internally to accomplish work. I'm also not talking about a specific kind of person who "needs" babying. I'm proposing instead that your average neurotypical human brain might have this effect built in, such that it applies to anyone and everyone. It would just be an effect that most of the time goes untapped.
    - ojosilva 10y ago
      I think a truer kind of relationship is the most significant factor still. It's the common denominator that will take people to great results for a wider "audience" (a team here). But I agree that fine-tuning your feedback and style per individual needs, even if counterintuitive, may also be productive, as long as it's not contradictory and leads to situations where one team member feels another is being babied around more.
- JabavuAdams 10y ago
  There's no objective feedback loop when the boss can use their rank to push through changes, though. I've seen multiple projects run into the ground based on wasting schedule for essentially arbitrary subjective changes backed by rank.
Strom 10y ago
The article isn't about objective criticism, it's about subjective opinion. Usually by a person with less experience, e.g. when a manager suggests a color change to a designer.
- ojosilva 10y ago
  I find objective and subjective sometimes difficult to discern. To the manager, and specially founders and visionaries, it all may sound objective. Frequently, management literature advocates for an instinctive response as a perfectly justified, even inherently better, contribution. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk's celebrated style of input comes to mind. Fast, truthful and direct, even if subjective. Sometimes one lacks the time to add insight to support an opinion. "Green instead of blue" may as well be sound feedback only the missing objectivity may be left as an exercise to the designer.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Nobody are saying managers shouldn't ever give subjective feedback. The issue is when managers always give subjective suggestions for changes, because it implies that the work isn't good enough. If the work is never good enough, why is that person presenting stuff to you? (Or why are they even working for you?) Clearly, if the work is never good enough, they need someone more on their own level to bounce ideas of, or someone slightly more senior to mentor them until what they present to you is good enough a reasonable portion of the time. In other words: If you constantly need to suggest changes, the team is badly managed to begin with. And if the changes you suggest are not needed, then don't suggest them, or at least not all the time. Not only does it negatively affect team morale if you always do it, but the extra time spent costs you money. If you are a visionary that people are clamouring to work for, then, sure, you have more latitude in the amount of suggestions you make. But most of us are not in that position.
dasboth 10y ago
The point was though that if your 2 cents' worth isn't constructive, if it's not the difference that could "make the project as good as it can be", you shouldn't give it.
arnarbi 10y ago
People can be impacted negatively without them wilting and pouting over it. Feelings are also very intangible. They might not even realize it themselves if it demoralizes them. Just the same as many people don't fully understand why their boss is such "a great boss". Managing people is also about understanding that your feelings are not a model for other people's feelings, and you must actively compensate for how others may react. The article is not about affirmation. It's pointing out that opinions of a manager often implicitly mean something more than an opinion, and your objective criticism isn't fully taken as such but rather in some part as an instruction. This is demoralizing for most people, even though it might be small. The conclusion is that perhaps-not-so-important opinions aren't worth the potential negative effect.
sangnoir 10y ago
> If I submit I project for scrutiny, I want constructive criticism and advice That's were you're misunderstanding the post: "2 cents" is unsolicited, minor advice that would be safely ignored from a co-worker, but with the cachet of a manager, its no longer just criticism or advice but an instruction. I suspect you assume that all teams are free to challenge their managers, but Derek's assumes the opposite (not all teams feel they are free to challenge their managers' opinions without repercussions). > The goal should to make the project as good as it can be That's entirely dependent on whether the manager is always right, otherwise they are making the project worse by fiat from time to time
JabavuAdams 10y ago
But in most workplaces I've worked in this inevitably leads to the manager pulling rank and saying "do this because I told you so." I've seen this again and again in creative industries, and I'm certainly not a millennial. A family member of mine worked for a boss (owner of company) who would constantly derail projects with his bullshit suggestions, because he just couldn't restrain himself. Some proportion of his suggestions were actually good, but his belittling and badgering of staff trained them all to do exactly what he asked for, even when that wasn't what he wanted, or what was good.
st3v3r 10y ago
But this article isn't about giving constructive criticism and advice. It's about those 2c opinions which are not constructive, but rather just subjective.

dwightgunning 10y ago

I've unfortunately had to manage baby boomers who'd often react this way.

derefr 10y ago

Perhaps it's like SEO, where all the low-hanging fruit is obvious and sensible, but where further optimization beyond that point is stuff that looks really odd and counter-intuitive, or like it "couldn't possibly" have any impact. Maybe people put out a 1.0 units of effort when you're just a reasonable person, but put out e.g. 1.1 units when you baby them, and so babying them is a "win" in some sense?

StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>Maybe people put out a 1.0 units of effort when you're just a reasonable person, but put out e.g. 1.1 units when you baby them, and so babying them is a "win" in some sense? I'd contend that any worker that you have to "baby" in a business environment to get their best effort is a worker you are better off without.
- iopq 10y ago
  That's not true. You could probably get better output out of most employees if you baby them just right. Who doesn't like a boss that lets them do whatever as long as it's beneficial to the company?
- derefr 10y ago
  Note that I'm talking about results, not effort. Someone could be giving their best effort already, resulting in 1.0 units of output. But babying them might be the emotional equivalent of blood-doping in a marathon, a psychological stimulus that actually partially restores or extends the willpower-resource that is spent internally to accomplish work. I'm also not talking about a specific kind of person who "needs" babying. I'm proposing instead that your average neurotypical human brain might have this effect built in, such that it applies to anyone and everyone. It would just be an effect that most of the time goes untapped.
  - ojosilva 10y ago
    I think a truer kind of relationship is the most significant factor still. It's the common denominator that will take people to great results for a wider "audience" (a team here). But I agree that fine-tuning your feedback and style per individual needs, even if counterintuitive, may also be productive, as long as it's not contradictory and leads to situations where one team member feels another is being babied around more.
JabavuAdams 10y ago
There's no objective feedback loop when the boss can use their rank to push through changes, though. I've seen multiple projects run into the ground based on wasting schedule for essentially arbitrary subjective changes backed by rank.

Strom 10y ago

The article isn't about objective criticism, it's about subjective opinion. Usually by a person with less experience, e.g. when a manager suggests a color change to a designer.

ojosilva 10y ago
I find objective and subjective sometimes difficult to discern. To the manager, and specially founders and visionaries, it all may sound objective. Frequently, management literature advocates for an instinctive response as a perfectly justified, even inherently better, contribution. Steve Jobs and Elon Musk's celebrated style of input comes to mind. Fast, truthful and direct, even if subjective. Sometimes one lacks the time to add insight to support an opinion. "Green instead of blue" may as well be sound feedback only the missing objectivity may be left as an exercise to the designer.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Nobody are saying managers shouldn't ever give subjective feedback. The issue is when managers always give subjective suggestions for changes, because it implies that the work isn't good enough. If the work is never good enough, why is that person presenting stuff to you? (Or why are they even working for you?) Clearly, if the work is never good enough, they need someone more on their own level to bounce ideas of, or someone slightly more senior to mentor them until what they present to you is good enough a reasonable portion of the time. In other words: If you constantly need to suggest changes, the team is badly managed to begin with. And if the changes you suggest are not needed, then don't suggest them, or at least not all the time. Not only does it negatively affect team morale if you always do it, but the extra time spent costs you money. If you are a visionary that people are clamouring to work for, then, sure, you have more latitude in the amount of suggestions you make. But most of us are not in that position.

dasboth 10y ago

The point was though that if your 2 cents' worth isn't constructive, if it's not the difference that could "make the project as good as it can be", you shouldn't give it.

arnarbi 10y ago

People can be impacted negatively without them wilting and pouting over it. Feelings are also very intangible. They might not even realize it themselves if it demoralizes them. Just the same as many people don't fully understand why their boss is such "a great boss". Managing people is also about understanding that your feelings are not a model for other people's feelings, and you must actively compensate for how others may react. The article is not about affirmation. It's pointing out that opinions of a manager often implicitly mean something more than an opinion, and your objective criticism isn't fully taken as such but rather in some part as an instruction. This is demoralizing for most people, even though it might be small. The conclusion is that perhaps-not-so-important opinions aren't worth the potential negative effect.

sangnoir 10y ago

> If I submit I project for scrutiny, I want constructive criticism and advice That's were you're misunderstanding the post: "2 cents" is unsolicited, minor advice that would be safely ignored from a co-worker, but with the cachet of a manager, its no longer just criticism or advice but an instruction. I suspect you assume that all teams are free to challenge their managers, but Derek's assumes the opposite (not all teams feel they are free to challenge their managers' opinions without repercussions). > The goal should to make the project as good as it can be That's entirely dependent on whether the manager is always right, otherwise they are making the project worse by fiat from time to time

JabavuAdams 10y ago

But in most workplaces I've worked in this inevitably leads to the manager pulling rank and saying "do this because I told you so." I've seen this again and again in creative industries, and I'm certainly not a millennial. A family member of mine worked for a boss (owner of company) who would constantly derail projects with his bullshit suggestions, because he just couldn't restrain himself. Some proportion of his suggestions were actually good, but his belittling and badgering of staff trained them all to do exactly what he asked for, even when that wasn't what he wanted, or what was good.

st3v3r 10y ago

But this article isn't about giving constructive criticism and advice. It's about those 2c opinions which are not constructive, but rather just subjective.