6 ms·

Nope. Seen both many times. The positive enforcement causes no one to share any negative thoughts after a while and the company smiles it's way out of business.

by hiou 10y ago

Nope. Seen both many times. The positive enforcement causes no one to share any negative thoughts after a while and the company smiles it's way out of business. Unfortunately people who will not speak up out of fear are toxic to company culture. The creative process is immediately destroyed when people need to second guess everything they say or do since it is impossible to know if you are about to say the wrong thing. If someone can not tolerate cynical and sarcastic comments they need to be removed quickly. This is very different from mean spirited put downs and intentionally hurtful comments. Stuff like "idk that button looks like it was mad in 2002" or "I swear we have the shittiest parser ever right here". Is good and fine. "You talk to much", "why did you write it like that? It doesn't make any sense" Are bad. Notice how the first like says "we" or talks about a specific feature and the others talk about specific people.

xenadu02 10y ago
First your anecdotes are not persuasive compared to two incredibly successful companies and one incredibly successful industry. Second, you missed the point. It isn't about prohibiting anyone from expressing a negative opinion or sugar-coating things. That's a false dichotomy. It's about not attacking the messenger and not looking to place blame. It also means accepting valid criticism. You can be 100% honest without being an asshole. Why do so many people (especially in tech) try to link "being a raging asshole" with telling the truth? The two are unrelated.
- _puk 10y ago
  This brings to mind the three whys, and why it is important to ask them for both positive and negative situations. Blame culture is extremely toxic, but negative feedback can have as much benefit as positive if approached from the correct angle.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- hiou 10y ago
  The problem is that many people who are hurt easily by cynical and sarcastic behavior(which is very different than being as asshole) typically take themselves very seriously and it's a sign that they are very self focused and place their own concerns way above those of the team. I wonder if there is a language barrier but cynical and sarcastic is very very different from putting people down.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    "The problem is that many people who are hurt easily by cynical and sarcastic behavior(which is very different than being as asshole) typically take themselves very seriously and it's a sign that they are very self focused and place their own concerns way above those of the team." Please give evidence supporting that claim. What I've seen is a lot of people are just non-confrontational by nature. They'll do a lot to avoid being in a fight. However, they may want to discuss things even with criticisms. It just becomes harmful to them after the conversational style crosses a certain line. Knowing this, groups like Toyota put a line down that allows the negative information to come in without the personal attacks or circumstances that shut many people down. Continuous innovations resulted that dwarfed the competition doing what you suggest. This is not an isolated incident as many innovative companies create similarly respectful environments where everyone tries to improve, either positively or negatively, the process or products without attacking each other.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Lots of good discussion in this whole thread. Another thing to keep in mind is that good, effective communication involves both/all parties. That involves the speaker communicating in a way that will be effectively received by the listener, and the listener actively participating to try to hear what the speaker is trying to communicate. So it's context dependent as well. There very well can be mismatches and miscommunication, but if the goal is effective communication, I think in a lot of cases these can be tolerated and worked around. Takes both sides.
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
me34llama 10y ago
You are conflating respect with a lack of conflict. This mistake allows you to pretend that "respect" consists solely of being nice, never putting anything down, and generally being ineffective. > If someone can not tolerate cynical and sarcastic comments they need to be removed quickly. This is very different from mean spirited put downs and intentionally hurtful comments. If somebody belives that cynical comments are valuable that person needs to be removed immediately. Cynicism is never the most effective position. Anybody who thinks it is is an asshole. If they can't realize this, they'll become a cancer. Cut out the cancer. Get rid of the cynics. If you hire somebody who says that being cynical is a must, then admit your mistake quickly. Fire them. They're worse than useless. An empty chair is more valuable than such a beast.
- rhizome 10y ago
  Isn't this essentially a tone argument?
  - wpietri 10y ago
    It's just the opposite. It's a context of respect that expands the useful ranges of tone. If a stranger shouts at me, I'll instantly ignore them. If a person who I don't trust shouts at me, I'll be planning my escape, or possibly shout back. If a person with whom I have a respectful relationship shouts at me, I'll immediately move to deescalate the situation, calm them down, and get us back to the sort of discussion where we can jointly discuss and solve whatever has put them in such pain. Long-term, large-scale problems require creative team-oriented approaches. Jerks eat away at social and cultural structures that make that possible. A book that covers the details is "The No-Asshole Rule": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT8GV2/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT8GV2/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
closeparen 10y ago
Yup. My team has vigorous disagreements about architecture and design. We all take an "engineer's mindset" - "I'm not married to this idea, just throwing it out there because a, b, and c - what do you guys think?" - and debate the ideas separately from (and usually without harm to) the egos of the people who generated them.

by hiou 10y ago

xenadu02 10y ago

First your anecdotes are not persuasive compared to two incredibly successful companies and one incredibly successful industry. Second, you missed the point. It isn't about prohibiting anyone from expressing a negative opinion or sugar-coating things. That's a false dichotomy. It's about not attacking the messenger and not looking to place blame. It also means accepting valid criticism. You can be 100% honest without being an asshole. Why do so many people (especially in tech) try to link "being a raging asshole" with telling the truth? The two are unrelated.

_puk 10y ago
This brings to mind the three whys, and why it is important to ask them for both positive and negative situations. Blame culture is extremely toxic, but negative feedback can have as much benefit as positive if approached from the correct angle.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
hiou 10y ago
The problem is that many people who are hurt easily by cynical and sarcastic behavior(which is very different than being as asshole) typically take themselves very seriously and it's a sign that they are very self focused and place their own concerns way above those of the team. I wonder if there is a language barrier but cynical and sarcastic is very very different from putting people down.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "The problem is that many people who are hurt easily by cynical and sarcastic behavior(which is very different than being as asshole) typically take themselves very seriously and it's a sign that they are very self focused and place their own concerns way above those of the team." Please give evidence supporting that claim. What I've seen is a lot of people are just non-confrontational by nature. They'll do a lot to avoid being in a fight. However, they may want to discuss things even with criticisms. It just becomes harmful to them after the conversational style crosses a certain line. Knowing this, groups like Toyota put a line down that allows the negative information to come in without the personal attacks or circumstances that shut many people down. Continuous innovations resulted that dwarfed the competition doing what you suggest. This is not an isolated incident as many innovative companies create similarly respectful environments where everyone tries to improve, either positively or negatively, the process or products without attacking each other.
  - grzm 10y ago
    Lots of good discussion in this whole thread. Another thing to keep in mind is that good, effective communication involves both/all parties. That involves the speaker communicating in a way that will be effectively received by the listener, and the listener actively participating to try to hear what the speaker is trying to communicate. So it's context dependent as well. There very well can be mismatches and miscommunication, but if the goal is effective communication, I think in a lot of cases these can be tolerated and worked around. Takes both sides.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago

me34llama 10y ago

You are conflating respect with a lack of conflict. This mistake allows you to pretend that "respect" consists solely of being nice, never putting anything down, and generally being ineffective. > If someone can not tolerate cynical and sarcastic comments they need to be removed quickly. This is very different from mean spirited put downs and intentionally hurtful comments. If somebody belives that cynical comments are valuable that person needs to be removed immediately. Cynicism is never the most effective position. Anybody who thinks it is is an asshole. If they can't realize this, they'll become a cancer. Cut out the cancer. Get rid of the cynics. If you hire somebody who says that being cynical is a must, then admit your mistake quickly. Fire them. They're worse than useless. An empty chair is more valuable than such a beast.

rhizome 10y ago
Isn't this essentially a tone argument?
- wpietri 10y ago
  It's just the opposite. It's a context of respect that expands the useful ranges of tone. If a stranger shouts at me, I'll instantly ignore them. If a person who I don't trust shouts at me, I'll be planning my escape, or possibly shout back. If a person with whom I have a respectful relationship shouts at me, I'll immediately move to deescalate the situation, calm them down, and get us back to the sort of discussion where we can jointly discuss and solve whatever has put them in such pain. Long-term, large-scale problems require creative team-oriented approaches. Jerks eat away at social and cultural structures that make that possible. A book that covers the details is "The No-Asshole Rule": https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT8GV2/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000OT8GV2/
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

closeparen 10y ago

Yup. My team has vigorous disagreements about architecture and design. We all take an "engineer's mindset" - "I'm not married to this idea, just throwing it out there because a, b, and c - what do you guys think?" - and debate the ideas separately from (and usually without harm to) the egos of the people who generated them.